From: "acoliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:35:55 -0000 "James Strachan" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote. > >> JMS is not > >> appropriate for a number of areas. > > > >Like what? > > > > UI, guaranteed failure situations.
I don't follow. JMS/MOM is one of the only solutions where clients and servers work in a connectionless way - clients and servers don't need to be running at the same time. The system can handle failures gracefully, with persistent messages, retry, reconciliation, load balancing, fault tolerance etc. > > >> In truth I've not yet learned enough > >> about SOAP to speak intelligently about it > > > >All I'll say is I think SOAP has a much better future than EJBs. > > > > From what I've read I'd tend to agree, though it looks...bulky. Agreed - though its a universal messaging format that can pass across all transports; which is kinda handy. So whether http/email/news/MOM is used you can connect anything to anything across diverse transports. > >I was just emphasizing that web applications are scalable - just add more > >boxes - and often they require quite modest hardware. EJB systems on the > >other hand can often need huge machines just to make quite simple systems. > > > > Agreed. I have fully stated: EJB sucks. However it would be nice to have > something there where you can isolate your database resources into a pool of > *servers* such as with any transaction processing system (going back to even > DCE crap -- which did suck too, but served a purpose) Totally agree. I think adding TP type abilities to web/MOM/SOAP would be cool. > So it looks like we basically agree. ;-) We're very verbose guys ;-) +10 ;-) James _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
