> 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 pattern
> allows one container
> to handle all the bean requests concurrently, something that was not fully
> realized in the original jBoss proof-of-concept. It was at that
jboss1.0 did that. It was *fully* realized and actually we have scaled back
on that
(you'll see it is actually a bad decision to have the container do it for
all beans)
> but to say
> that OpenEJB is
> Richard's container design is ridiculous.
freudian's slip? :)))) just teasing...
PLgC
marc
>
> > 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.
>
> >
> > 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. 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.
>
> I don't think anyone in the jBoss community will use OpenEJB
> directly because
> its intended for those people that are developing application
> servers. In the
> future, however, you may end up using OpenEJB and not even know
> it because it
> will be hidden inside the application server you are using.
>
> OpenEJB gives application server vendors and open source projects
> instance EJB
> 2.0 functionality -- 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
> --
> Richard Monson-Haefel
> Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 2nd Edition
> Published by O'Reilly & Associates
> http://www.EjbNow.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
