Hi!
"Kenneth D. Litwak" wrote:
> When I first took a course on EJBs I was told that the 2.0 spec for EJBs
> would resolve the ambiguity between a container and aserver, so that you could
> assemble an application in a container and sellthe whole thing, container and
> all, or at least move it transparently between EJB severs. This was a major
> part of teh EJB vision, a core piee of what makes EJBs a better alternative than
> just using an app server.
>
> I know others proably knew about his alrady, but I recently learned that
> SUn has dropped this idea altogether becuase the EJB vendors won't play ball.
> They refuse to allow a standard definition of a container or serer, thus making
> container portability virtually impossible. This seems to me to be sucha major
> loss to the EJB vision that I am wondering if what is left is sufficient by
> itself. If I can't have a portable container, I'm not very far from app-server
> specific code. So, thanks to the vendors, what's the compelling reason to use
> EJBs now, if I can never sell you an EJB application that is ready to go,
> because it must be installed one piece at a time in a vendor-specific container
> now?
Sorry to be so brute, but this is a major misunderstanding!
Key points:
* J2EE defines how an application is specified and packaged, so apps are
"ready to go"
* The EJB 1.1 spec has changed to allow key elements such as Entity
persistence to be added on top of CMP beans, which in effect gives the
container portability that you refer to.
Do you have more concerns?
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dreambean.com
Question reality
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
