Hi!
sandeep wrote:
> If OpenEJB is to provide just a container implementation, I'm not too sure
> I understand how "scalability and fault tolerance" can be guaranteed anyway.
> Does the container-server contract say those are the rules? I don't think
> so. Which essentially means that any container implentation can be no more
> robust/scalable that the server that hosts the container.
Well, can't tell for sure without understanding how they intend to do
it, but it would be possible to have a set of non-cluster-aware servers
with cluster-aware containers. Tricky, but possible.
Otherwise, they could do some clustering hooks in their
container-architecture; "add your clustering implementation here". Also
tricky.
But all of this is speculation.
> In any case at this point in time, when there is a definite lack of
> top-quality+cheap+stable J2EE app servers, offering just a container system
> leaves most of us stranded. And so JBoss roolz!
That's the basic idea, yes. We code what we want, and we want a J2EE app
server, pure and simple.
> One thing really promising about the OpenEJB effort is associated software
> like Tyrex etc. Their attitude seems to be - take a bunch of great software
> components and put together a great application infrastructure. Really
> commendable.
Yes, as do jBoss.
> Interestingly, does JBoss (maybe in 3.0) have any plans to be interoperable
> with the OpenEJB container. They have (or will soon) have a complete
> reference implementation and specs out. Hey, can this be worked out - I
> mean, since the JBoss container design is really modular and great. Maybe
> most of it can be plugged OUT as well. ;-)
All of the jBoss modules have been made as JMX MBeans, and are hence
pluggable into any JMX compliant server.
/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]
