On 3/29/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Leon, Hi,
> > I've been doing a bit of reading and I guess I'll be using Spring's > remoting support in conjunction with RMI. Seems like the easiest way to > do this. If performance is not an issue, got for it. It's quite a pity that people abandon well thought, highly supported industry standarts in favor of proprietary protocols, but its another battlefield. Just interesting, what were your reasons to prefer spring to corba? > > Just out of curiosity, why did you rate EJB with a -10, yet RMI with a > 0? AFAIK, EJB use RMI - so why do you consider plain RMI to be that much > better? Per default EJB Containers have to use GIOP/IIOP -> corba. I consider EJB (<3.0) for bad (there are a lot of books on this topic) since it's a very heavyweight technology. -10 for EJB is not for remoting with EJB, but the EJB itself (again <3.0, I haven't had much practice with the new spec yet). RMI itself is pretty easy to learn and to use, and as long as you want to stick with it, and don't need performance, it's ok. > > Regards, > Tom Leon > > Leon Rosenberg wrote: > > JMS as far as I now is comparable with the notification service in > > corba. Therefore it offers you about 5% of the functionality corba > > offers you. > > > > regards > > leon > > > > Btw, JMS doesn't fit in ANY application, you should have the special > > type of application to use it. > > > > On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Leon, > >> > >> thanks for the input. May I ask how you would rate JMS and if this would > >> also be a suitable solution for decoupling applications? I am a bit > >> reluctant to switch to CORBA since I have absolutely no experience in > >> this area. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tom > >> > >> Leon Rosenberg wrote: > >>> If you want performance go for CORBA > >>> if you want interface stability go for CORBA > >>> If you want simplicity go for RMI > >>> > >>> If you want use 3rd party products go for EJB (CORBA would do also). > >>> > >>> In my personal opinion, EJB would be a -10, SOAP -5, RMI 0, CORBA +1. > >>> > >>> If you are looking for a good (or best) corba implementation (orb) : > >>> www.jacorb.org > >>> > >>> regards > >>> Leon > >>> > >>> On 3/28/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Hi Tom! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Tamas! > >>>>> > >>>>> Unfortunately, I cannot include my base-jar in both projects, because I > >>>>> am using Hibernate, which heavily uses caching. Therefore, updates that > >>>>> are performed by web services are not visible on the web. Having two > >>>>> versions of a hibernate app accessing the same db is not a good thing to > >>>>> do (concurrency!). > >>>>> This is exactly the issue that made me look at JMS/SOAP/RMI/etc. If you > >>>>> have any idea, how to circumvent this problem, I'd be more that happy to > >>>>> stick with the single-JVM-approach. > >>>> Hibernate has pluggable caching. So you can use distributed caching if > >>>> that > >>>> is the only > >>>> concern that you have. For example check out SwarmCache or just google on > >>>> Hibernate distributed caching. > >>>> > >>>> However, I haven't used it cause we haven't used caching (Hibernate > >>>> didn't > >>>> had exclusive access to the database) > >>>> > >>>> By the way if you decide to go for more JVMs, I would probably use RMI. I > >>>> would also have a look at Spring's support for remoting because I think > >>>> you > >>>> can expose your managed beans easily. > >>>> > >>>> I wouldn't use SOAP, it's big strength is that is HTTP based so it can be > >>>> used by the majority of the clients (isn't blocked by firewalls). > >>>> And I would choose RMI over CORBA if there are only Java applications > >>>> involved. > >>>> > >>>> This is only my preference list of course try to get as much oppinions as > >>>> you can ;-) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tamas > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>>> Tom > >>>>> > >>>>> Tamas Szabo wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Tom, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is there a reason you can't have all the business service layer in a > >>>>> Common > >>>>>> project and include it as a jar in both the web gui an the web services > >>>>> app? > >>>>>> I usually use this approach if possible... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm interested in what others say about this but I wouldn't go on the > >>>>> path > >>>>>> you want to go if it is avoidable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tamas > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Tamas, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> thanks for your reply. Modularity is not my only concern. I am pretty > >>>>>>> sure that performance considerations will soon force me to separate > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> app, since the web services will do lots of number crunching, which in > >>>>>>> turn, will slow down the entire app. Apart from that, I figured it's a > >>>>>>> better, cleaner approach plus it's gonna me more stable (I hope), > >>>>>>> since > >>>>>>> e.g. if the web services "break" the web gui will not be affected in > >>>>> any > >>>>>>> way. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Tom > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tamas Szabo wrote: > >>>>>>>> HI, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do I understand it correctly? > >>>>>>>> Do you want to break it up just to ensure that is modular? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If it isn't a requirement then I wouldn't add some communication > >>>>>>>> layer > >>>>>>>> between the modules. > >>>>>>>> Be happy that you have everything in one JVM and you don't have to > >>>>> deal > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the complexity resulting from ANY of the technologies you mentioned. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tamas > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am a developer, currently working working on a medium scale app. > >>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>>> is a base module, which is Spring managed, that handles data access > >>>>>>>>> - > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> web tier and now a couple of web services. Up until now, we deployed > >>>>>>>>> everything as one application, so communication between the modules > >>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> API-based and thus not really an issue. Now I am wondering, whether > >>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> is prudent to deploy each module separately and add a communication > >>>>>>> layer. > >>>>>>>>> So my question is, whether or not it is sensible to break the app > >>>>> apart > >>>>>>>>> (for the sake of modularity) and if so, how the individual > >>>>>>>>> components > >>>>>>>>> should communicate with each other. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Most of my requests to the business layer will be synchronous, so > >>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>> am > >>>>>>>>> not sure whether JMS is the right technology to apply. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - RMI would result in a very tight coupling and I'd be restricted to > >>>>>>>>> using JAVA everywhere. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - CORBA - haven't used it yet. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - SOAP - great when interoperability is an requirement, lots of > >>>>>>> overhead > >>>>>>>>> (XML). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am not trying to start a rant about which technology is better - I > >>>>> am > >>>>>>>>> simply looking for the best solution for my problem. Surely, many of > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>> had to make a similar decision at one point or another, so I'd be > >>>>>>>>> grateful if you would share your experiences and/or advise on how I > >>>>>>>>> should proceed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Tom > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
