How about transactions. Does your tool tie in with EJB's transaction
management, or are you using your own transaction demarcation code?
On the other hand, why not use CMP? I have been developing with Orion
Server (1.5.2) for quite some time now and there has not been a relationship
that we were not able to implement with CMP. Complicated things like N-to-N
bidirectional relationships, circular relationships, tree and forest
structures, all expressed in terms of CMP.
-AP_
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Local ejb or vanilla objects - aaaaggh!
I'm designing a new system and was intending to use a session bean facade
talking to a graph of "vanilla" java business objects. The persistence of
the vanilla objects is handled by a third party o/r tool.
Since the tool handles caching etc. as well as straight persistence, and
considering the performance problems (prior to invention of local entity
beans) of fine grained entity beans, we decided to forget entity beans
altogether.
However... now Sun has decided to invent local interfaces, I'm in a spin as
to whether I should use local ejbs instead of my vanilla objects, on the
other hand I'm not sure they would add anything since I'm not using CMP?
===========================================================================
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".
