Hi Robert,
I am glad you agree that it needs a *clean up*. I think this is a
no-brainer. I will disagree on the point of "we wouldn't have to overhaul it
twice". I think a change would have been well received especially
considering the fact the the ejb 2.0 specification and compliant projects
will not be ready until next year. Sincerely, continuation (web logic has
made further enhancements in this area) down the wrong path does not seem a
sound decision. I think the community and customer base would have benefited
by your rolling out of a better solution which could possibly have been
something the fortcoming standard was based on. During this period you could
have tested your solution out in the real world.
Personally, the features that the Inprise Application Server (IAS 4.0) team
have created should become part of the cmp/finder specification. These
features are being used and quite effectively in real world applications
with many customers liking them. What can be said of others which are still
on some internal drawing board and yet to see the light of day?
kind regards,
William Louth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Patrick [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 12:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: failover of stateful session beans in WebLogic
>
> William,
>
> <personal opinion and not speaking for vendor>
>
> I wish we would clean this up too.
>
> Maybe I am smoking something but I believe that part of the EJB 2.0 effort
> was to standardize the query language for CMP finder method definitions.
> I
> believe that, instead of cleaning this up in our EJB 1.1 implementation,
> we
> opted to wait until there was a specification so that we wouldn't have to
> overhaul it twice...
>
> </personal opinion and not speaking for vendor>
>
> Robert
>
> At 03:49 PM 4/18/00 -0400, Louth, William (Exchange) wrote:
> >while looking a the docs I noticed something that caught my attention
> >before:
> >
> ><web-logic-docs>
> >By embedding a simple Java expression in the WLQL string, you can convert
> >the supplied maxBal value to another currency before querying the RDBMS.
> For
> >example, if maxBal is supplied in U.S. dollars and the conversion rate to
> >pounds is 1.6483, you can use a simple expression to multiply the value:
> ><finder>
> > <method-name>findSomeAccounts</method-name>
> > <method-params>
> > <method-param>double</method-param>
> > <method-param>string</method-param>
> > </method-params>
> > <finder-query>(& (< balance $0) (= owner $1))</finder-query>
> > <finder-expression>
> > <expression-number>0</expression-number>
> > <expression-text>@0 * 1.6483</expression-text>
> > <expression-type>long</expression-type>
> > </finder-expression>
> ></finder>
> >
> >In the above example, $0 is replaced by the Java expression @0 * 1.6483,
> >which multiplies the value of maxBal by 1.6483. Because the EJB provider
> did
> >not override the value of $1, WLQL maps $1 to the second parameter in the
> >finder method signature, ownerID.
> >
> >A more advanced version of this finder could use Java to determine the
> >conversion rate when converting maxBal:
> ><finder-expression>
> > <expression-number>0</expression-number>
> > <expression-text>@0 *
> >Double.parseDouble(System.getProperties().get("rate.pounds.dollars"))</ex
> pre
> >ssion-text>
> > <expression-type>long</expression-type>
> ></finder-expression>
> >
> ></web-logic-docs>
> >
> >I previously posted a message regarding improving and standardizing the
> >finder syntax and was hoping for some feedback but alas none came. So I
> will
> >*ignite* the issue again in this thread. Question: Is it just me but have
> >the web logic guys just totally lost it. I am all for impoving the
> >capabilities of the syntax like accessing a field within an object passed
> >across as a parameter (based on java beans design pattern) but I think we
> >are starting to push things just the the edge of silliness when we allow
> for
> >the syntax to include :
> >Double.parseDouble(System.getProperties().get("rate.pounds.dollars"))
> while
> >still keeping the ridiculus prefix notation : >(& (< balance $0) (= owner
> >$1)). Maybe I am old fashion but should not the finder syntax reasonable
> SQL
> >considering that most ejb installations will have a relational database
> >backend and most deployers would have knowledge of this over Java's api.
> I
> >think the web logic server team's time would have been better spent in
> >getting rid of the crappy prefix syntax - *we are not computers and do
> not
> >process instructions this way*.
> >
> >To the web logic users who have used the features mentioned above. Could
> you
> >tell me why not include the * 1.6483 in the original query syntax is this
> >some limitation which was addressed in this convulated way or just an
> >example demonstrating a unwarranted feature.
> >
> >William Louth
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Louth, William (Exchange)
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:29 PM
> > > To: 'A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development'
> > > Subject: RE: failover of stateful session beans in WebLogic
> > >
> > > as per the web logic 5.1 documentation
> > >
> > > http://www.weblogic.com/docs51/classdocs/API_ejb/EJB_environment.html
> > >
> > > ===========================================
> > > Stateful session EJBs
> > >
> > > Stateful session EJBs can utilize cluster-aware home stubs by setting
> > > home-is-clusterable to "true." This provides failover and load
> balancing
> > > for stateful EJB lookups. Stateful session EJBs cannot utilize
> > > replica-aware EJBObject stubs, and WebLogic Server does not provide
> > > failover services for method calls to stateful session EJBs.
> > >
> > > If you require cluster failover services for stateful objects,
> consider
> > > implementing the stateful session EJB as a servlet. Servlets can
> maintain
> > > state through failover in a cluster using either JDBC, an operating
> system
> > > file, or directly in memory. See Using session tracking from a servlet
> for
> > > more information.
> > >
> > > ===========================================
> > >
> > > I do not have any idea if there are plans. I suspose this will come
> with
> > > the next release possibly next year (ejb 2.0) since this release has
> still
> > > to come out of beta.
> > >
> > > William Louth
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Hogan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:00 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: failover of stateful session beans in WebLogic
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > This feature seems to be missing from WebLogic and their documentation
> > > suggests achieving failover protection using servlet/session. Am I
> > > understanding this right, and does anyone have information on
> WebLogic's
> > > plans to support stateful session bean failover? Thanks.
> > >
> > > JohnH
> > >
> > >
> ==========================================================================
> > > =
> > > 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".
> >
> >
> >***********************************************************************
> >Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation,
> >offer or agreement or any information about any transaction, customer
> >account or account activity contained in this communication.
> >***********************************************************************
> >
> >=========================================================================
> ==
> >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".
***********************************************************************
Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation,
offer or agreement or any information about any transaction, customer
account or account activity contained in this communication.
***********************************************************************
===========================================================================
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".
