Hi!
Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
>
> sandeep wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > 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.
>
> OpenEJB is not Rickard's design. I think we have to give credit where credit is
> due, so here is a little background: The folks at Orion came up with the idea
> of using the JDK 1.3 proxies for Java RMI stubs.
No, they do not use JDK 1.3 proxies for their stubs.
> Rickard used Orion's idea to
> create the first proof of concept for his jBoss architecture.
No, I did not use Orions idea for jBoss. AFAIK I have not used any ideas
from Orion in jBoss.
> I thought that
> the real power of the JDK 1.3 proxies was the deligation pattern at the
> container, not the stub implementation itself.
The real power is the introduction of logical EJB-objects, and ease of
deployment, and is exactly what we did in jBoss 1.0 and 2.0. If credit
where credit due, then we have had this since 1.0 as implemented by
Marc.
> The pattern allows one container
> to handle all the bean requests concurrently, something that was not fully
> realized in the original jBoss proof-of-concept.
That is incorrect, see above.
> It was at that time that I
> left the jBoss project to start the OpenEJB project, which is based on this
> pattern.
Again, which is the same pattern that jBoss has used since 1.0. The
primary goal of the jBoss 2.0 container architecture was to introduce
the plugins, which we have successfully done.
> Anyway, since that time OpenEJB and jBoss have taken wildly different paths.
Yes, jBoss uses GPL and wants to provide a flexible application server
that can be arranged to suit every single developers different needs,
wheres OpenEJB has a BSD-style license and only aims to do a container.
> I
> think we are sometimes inspired by each others work, but to say that OpenEJB is
> Richard's container design is ridiculous. I'm sure Rickard would agree.
Absolutely, don't blame me for OpenEJB <g> ;-)
> > 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."
>
> Not sure where you got this quote, but I think Salability and fault tolerance
> are the design goals of any application server so I won't dispute it.
Agree with Sandeeps comment. The number one design and implementation
principle that I have employed in jBoss is to Not Under Any Circumstance
Assume That I Know What Every Single User Wants. Period. Because of
this, and which is largely why there is such a lot of people here with
different background and needs, the container has become useful for a
larger amount of people.
> > Q2: From the architectural standpoint, what the difference between OpenEJB
> > and JBoss right about NOW?
>
> OpenEJB is strictly a container system and its community is composed of
> application server developers, not business system developer as is the case with
> jBoss.
Yes, the jBoss community consists of people who needs an application
server to do their "real job", just as the Linux community needs an OS
to do their "real job". OpenEJB consists of people who wants to make
money by selling it to other people, which is why they prefer the
BSD-style license: they can make any changes they want without
necessarily providing them to the community. Big difference.
> OpenEJB is already been adopted by two proprietary application servers
> as well as the OpenORB CORBA server, so it's proven successful in its role as a
> container system.
Well, if we talk just about plugability, the jBoss EJB container is a
JMX component itself, so it can be plugged into any JMX-compliant
server. Which is quite a few these days.
> OpenEJB gives application server vendors and open source projects instance EJB
> 2.0 functionality
As will jBoss.
> -- that probably doesn't mean much to you folks but for
> application server developers its a real windfall. We focus on just the
> container system so we can direct our energies to creating a very powerful and
> fast EJB 2.0 container.
Which is why Marc and I from the beginning focused on creating a real
community around jBoss. We realize that we can't do it all ourselves,
nor would it be best if that was the case. Because of the modularized
architecture we can have teams directing their energies to that single
part of the whole, and then be able to simply plug it in. For example,
the recently submitted SOAP distribution plugin, and the upcoming
advanced caching plugin.
> Application serves that use OpenEJB can depend on it
> performance and conformance and its community. Application developers that use
> a server built on OpenEJB can be assured that the core container is reliable,
> performant, and behaves as expected.
And the same goes, of course, for jBoss. Not because I say so, but
because the community wants it so.
> Ideally, we would like to see jBoss adopt OpenEJB as its container system. That
> way the good folks at jBoss can focus on all the other functionality of a J2EE
> system, while we continue to enhance and support the core EJB 2.0 container.
> This is the path that other J2EE vendors and open source J2EE projects are using
> or considering because it makes good business sense.
Well, since the jBoss server is based on JMX (heck what is the jBoss
server anyway? It's just a bootstrapper for JMX really) we could plug it
in. Or rather, anyone who wants to use OpenEJB, for some reason, can
plug it in.
I hope things are clearer now.
/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]
