Tim Lucia wrote:
Hibernate is not J2EE "based". It just so happens it provides a EJB-free solution to a servlet container environment. Hibernate does not require J2EE.
Nice terminology quandry that the app server marketeers have dug for us.
They've painted a world of "J2EE == EJB" and "J2EE == the only (good) way to do Java in the enterprise" and transitively "EJB == the only (good) way to do Java in the enterprise".
Certainly and unquestionably one of the first two equalities is patently incorrect. I'd argue that the first is incorrect and that J2EE implies use of Java and any Java enterprise APIs that are appropriate for the problem. If somehow, none were appropriate (doubtful if one considers JDBC as both a J2SE and J2EE technology), then I'd still consider that J2EE.
The problem is that by creating a clear lie in their definitions, app server marketeers have left the Java industry in a silly quandry. This affects things ranging from surveys of developers asking "Which of the following do you use? (a) J2EE, (b) .NET, ..." where developers may say "no, I don't use J2EE as I don't use EJBs" to a silly stigma against things like Hibernate both when they claim they're J2EE based (for having too much to do with EJB and app server complexity) and when they're not (for not being standards based).
A fine hole dug by the marketeers... -- Jess Holle --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
