> What I don't agree here (and I think we may have
> discussed this before irl)
Probably ;-)
> is the following: One needs
> a component model/architecture/framework, especially
> in design and implementation.
Agreed.
> The design is _always_
> bound to that component model and have to be reworked
> from analysis to change component model.
What level of the component model are we talking about? If you mean that
you are bound to having something like a session bean for the service
layer and something like a entity bean for the persistence I most
totally agree. But if you mean the implementation of this, which mean
that what is something like an entity bean must look exactly like an EJB
one, with primary keys and everything, I would at least try to disagree.
> There are two
> things to do, either one uses a component model
> out-of-the-box or one invents one for yourself.
> I always prefer using things out-of-the-box because
> that component model has been provided by people much
> smarter spending much longer time designing, testing,
> redesigning than I could ever do in my lifetime.
That's just you Jon ;-) No, of course I agree. I am not about to create
my own component model that solves just what EJB does. But I still want
to be able to incorporate a few things that are not there.
> Yet
> even more unlikely within the scope of one project.
> Also if you're using the component model in design
> that your gonna use in implementation and deployment
> you get a design optimized for that component model
> and thus a better system in the end. (Like for
> example, the remote/local design-issues.)
I'm still agreeing 100% ...
> And remember, with J2EE one is bound to the component
> model not a specific product. Which feels way more
> safe than the COM+-alternative.
Uhmm ... do I need to say I agree taking my choice of employer into
account :-)?
> Inventing a new component model is for the gurus. For
> me, it's a pleasure looking and using the results of
> the people who designed J2EE and the architectures
> adopted for it in the later days.
I've never mentioned creating a new component model, it would be futile
and stupid by your very arguments. However there are moments where I
find it not optimized for the task at hand, and that is when I want to
encapsulate it. If I can or not is a different question which I do not
think will be correctly answered until it has been tried.
I believe we agree on most things. As always ;-).
/Marcus
Marcus Ahnve
Sun Java Center
Sweden
===========================================================================
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".
