> I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, but that's true. Back in
> EJBoss 1.0 I do remember the "container" being in more or less 1 class.
> So, guilty as charged then... <g>
that's right, I am actually very proud of that fact <g> and the fact that it
(basically the container and the wrapper) made for a pretty "low-tech"
container that worked... I view jboss2 as jboss1 done with integration
design, i.e. a real pluggable version.
Your design is real rickard, it is a success and the integration proves it.
I am also slighly amused, when you factor the EJB work so much and away from
the container you end up having to do all the EJB work at the last
interceptor and that gave us the wonderful "JAWS does EJB calls"
silliness... SO I was looking at the interceptors and going "my... he has
REALLY achieved the nirvana of factorization and design HIS CLASSES DO
NOTHING AT ALL !!!!!!!!! :))))))" and the poor jaws at the end of the "we
pass along but we do nothing" interceptors had to take care of deep EJB
calls. :))) ooops.
I am juuuuuuuust kidding.:)))))
Seriously now. I believe we still have a serious problem with performance.
I need to double check that and make sure those numbers are real. But 10ms
for Stateless beans is not really good, in fact it is pretty bad... My
"low-tech" 2 classes impl, ran fast at least :). Again not to worry, that
we will tackle in time (soon) I think we have already done a lot of
progress.
PLgC
marc
>
> > Actually I am pulling your leg, you don't do it *that* bad, ok
> you did in
> > the EJX metadata stuff but that is ok (remember the
> > getContext().getContext().getContext().getContext
> (/outofbreath)? stuff???)
>
> I will reiterate that the getContext() stuff was simply a terribly minor
> implementation detail. You wanna bring that up again?
>
> > but really that is ok and I AGREE with you that the extensions in the
> > container are good and useful.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > Let's not get in religious arguments over "I like my
> hierarchies with 2 or 3
> > depths, but no more".
>
> Well, you know how I react when you do the "design sucks" thing. I turn
> reddish. :-/
>
> > I really believe that factorization is a "late stage" excercise. Good
> > design (like the one you did) doesn't go overboard with
> abstract classes and
> > "implements pedantable, unreliable, unreadable" classes.
>
> True. I just pointed it out since MessageBeans is around the corner and
> the property factorization will be pretty apparent.
>
> /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]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
