Hi!
sandeep wrote:
> I just came across a few sketchy comments about the OpenEJB archtecture -
> i.e. how both JBoss and OpenEJB both share Rickard's container design. And
> in the case of OpenEJB, "the goal of this project is to develop a production
> server which people will be able to use for mission critical applications.
> Scalability, fault tolerance, and working supports for entity beans and CMP
> are top priorities of this effort."
> Q1. Does this sort of (even subtly - you know by stating something, you
> could negate something else) imply that scalability and fault tolerance are
> not up on the JBoss priority list? More interestingly, won't JBoss support
> "mission-critical applications?"
Of course not. jBoss 2.0 (what we are doing now) will not have
clustering, which is an important scalability featurem, but that will be
done for jBoss 3.0, which we will begin developing in the not so distant
future.
> Q2: From the architectural standpoint, what the difference between OpenEJB
> and JBoss right about NOW?
I haven't dug too much into the internals of OpenEJB to answer that
fully, but for one they are only providing a container, whereas we want
to provide a whole server. Which IMHO is more practical. In the case of
OpenEJB they need some app server to be built on top of it, or some
existing app server to utilize it. You be the judge on the probabilities
on that to happen.
> Q3: BTW, Is there a document that details Rickard's container design? Or is
> is another "read the code, its all there" situation?'
This is coming once I finish up my book and dive back into the jBoss
project 100%.
Thanks for the Q's, they were very good!
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
