I've been reading this thread for days with great interest.
I have some questions for Marcus or Laird about the current approach.
The Setup
---------
The solution you propose involves wrapping entity beans with an EJB independent
interface. However, a significant part of the EJB interface involves entity
bean life cycle stuff -- i.e. creation, query, mutation, and destruction of
persistent objects. These functions aren't specific to EJB persistent objects.
If we wrap the beans then we have to develop our own API for these functions.
It seems that we'll each end up with our own EJB-like, home-grown, persistent
object management layer.
The Questions
-------------
Is this what we want? Is this worth the cost given your assessment of the
likelihood of swapping component models?
Miscellany
----------
We are using what we call "state objects" to pass entity bean state to clients
to avoid what would otherwise be an incredible amount of getter traffic on the
net. We also have developed "business interfaces" that both the state objects
and remote interfaces implement. This allows us the flexibility to change our
minds about whether a client should deal with remote interfaces or state
objects. However, when it comes to life cycle stuff, we're using the stock
standard entity bean interfaces provided by EJB.
Humbly requesting your thoughts...
Tom Larson
Capital One Services, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Laird Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 'local' entity beans vs dependent objects
Marcus Ahnve wrote:
> The point, at least mine, is to have an independent interface, and then
> use EJB to implement that interface. No one has mentioned not using
> session beans, they are far too useful preventing what you are
> mentioning. But instead of having your session bean client - applet,
> jsp, servlet, application - make a direct call with all the
> InitialContext.lookup etc you wrap that code with an object that has an
> EJB independent interface. That way you are EJB independent from a
> client point of view. And since the session bean is a client to the
> entity bean, let it call a wrapping object too. In the end you will have
> all layers isolated and EJB independent.
>
> Laird, are these your thoughts too, or am I way off?
Nope, you're right on.
Cheers,
Laird
===========================================================================
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".
===========================================================================
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".
