Eric, > I have also been disappointed with the EJB 2.0 specification in this > regard. It is as if everyone was so tired of debating the performance of > Entity beans, they caved in to the Local interfaces compromise. I'm > surprised that there has been a complete failure to emphasize the > performance penalty of invoking a local EJB. Although considerably less > than the penalty of a remote EJB, there is still a penalty with local EJB > method invocation. The overhead is sizeable enough to warrant large > disclaimers, such as "don't use fine-grained attribute accessors."
Exactly! Its just that the name 'local interfaces' is misleading and leads people to assume [wrongly] that accessing beans through their local interfaces incurs approx the same overhead as invoking local objects. And that very same misconception - without empirical data to back it up could lead to the wrong recommendations being made to the developer community. On the other hand, I believe it is wrong to blame the EJB spec authors for not pointing this out. Design patterns/anti-patterns and the likes (bulk getters/value object/ zillion other strategies/patterns etc) are outside the scope of the EJB spec. And a lot of J2EE vendors (including us) have pointed in different forums that local access is fast (compared to remote access) - but not free. -krish (Borland) =========================================================================== 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".
