GET READY for J2EE (Q499).. you will understand!

john

On 05-May-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was thinking about this discussion of servlets and application servers
> and taking into consideration that I know nothing about EJB, but have some
> minor experience with an app server, and lots of experience with servlets.
> In fact, when dealing with this particular app server (NetDynamics) I can
> help but wondering why this couldn't be done better, smaller, faster with
> servlets?
> 
> With this in mind I think about how there are so many new and wonderful
> things being done with Java, it seems like a lot of them overlap.  Being
> that all my server side java experience is with servlets, I have a nice
> hammer here and everything is indeed looking like a nail.
> 
> So I pose this question to my java compatriots with experience in other
> realms of server side java.  Why would I use an app server or some other
> technology?  What does EJB give me?  Couldn't I use EJB with servlets as
> opposed to an EJB centric appserver?
> 
> The things I've read about the server I'm using, none of which convinced
> me that were I a corporation I should sink $25k into something like
> NetDynamics that I couldn't do with a webserver.  Keep in mind though that
> I have no experience with EJB, so I don't know what advantages of using
> EJB with an app server would be as opposed to using EJB with a web server
> and servlets, where the webserver is simply a standardized means of
> client/server communication.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

----------------------------------
E-Mail: John N. Alegre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06-May-99
Time: 20:42:21

This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to