Hi Charles (and JBoss team :-),
As an Enhydra supporter I'm not going to hijack this
mail list, but would like to point out that the assessment
of Enhydra Enterprise is pretty out of date. I'm not sure
which version you evaluated, but so many of the features you
reported missing are actually done (some for a long time):
e.g. running in the same JVM, polling of EJBs, database
connections, etc. A few reported disadvantages were stopgap
measures that have significantly changed. E.g. JNDI
provider, classloader issues. Anyway, I suggest you
re-evaluate Enhydra Enterprise 4.0 alpha4!
Ok Marc I'm going off line....
- Paul.
--
Paul A Morgan
Chief Technology Officer
Lutris Technologies, Inc.
1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
831.471.9753, x7307; 831.471.9754 (fax)
http://www.lutris.com
http://www.enhydra.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Crain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "jBoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] jBoss or Enhydra ?
> First of all, Rickard is right, if all you are looking for
is an EJB
> container, you will be talking about JoNaS, the EJB
component of Enhydra. I
> have not use all of Enhydra, BUT I have used JoNaS, so I
will try to compare
> and contrast here.
>
> First of all, let me just start by saying that having
evaluated both, I
> personally chose jBoss for several reasons which I'll go
over after my
> (somewhat) unbiased comparison of the two:
>
> JoNaS advantages:
> - decent EJB 1.1 compliance, better than most anyway (such
as Allaire JRun).
> There are a few problems, like the ejb-jar.xml file
doesn't go in the
> META-INF directory, so you will at least have to re-jar
beans from a fully
> compliant server to deploy them on JoNaS.
> - Easy to configure data soucres and set up finder methods
for entity beans
> - True distributed transaction management using their own
transaction
> server, able to coordinate transactions between different
machines
> - Ability to obtain a UserTransaction object from a remote
client
> (application client), albeit NOT in the standard J2EE way.
> - Fairly stable
> - Used with Enhydra, you get a JMX (Java Management
Extension) enabled
> server that allows easy remote management.
>
> jBoss advantages:
> - Proxy-based deployment!!!! You don't need to generate
stubs for your
> beans, that's all done automatically, just copy your beans
into the deploy
> directory, and they are automatically hot-deployed.
> - JMX-enabled server with finer grained component
architecture than JoNaS.
> Whereas in JoNaS, the whole EJB server is a component of
Enhydra, with
> jBoss, the auto deployer, bean container, tx manager, etc.
are all
> components.
> - Very good EJB 1.1 compliance
> - Graphical deployment tools allow you to set up data
sources, finder
> methods, etc.
> - Rapidly evolving J2EE compliance...for instance, the
ability to obtain
> user transactions via the standard J2EE method for in-VM
EJB clients is
> either in the works or already there.
> - Actively developed! Reported bugs are typically fixed
within a couple
> days, and new features are always popping up. Even EJB
2.0 support is in
> the roadmap.
> - Several advanced features, such as the ability to load
classes dynamically
> from clients, so you don't have to put ANY extra jars
(apart from the
> standard ejb.jar and the interfaces for your beans) in the
client's
> classpath.
> - Takes advantage of several new features in the new
(faster, better) JDK
> 1.3
> - Clustering support coming soon! This is a feature
typically only seen on
> $10,000+ per CPU servers like WebLogic. And as I
understand it the
> slickness of the implementation (Jini-based) will blow
WebLogic smooth out
> of the water.
> - good documentation, particularly for a young open source
effort
>
> JoNaS disadvantages:
> - Somewhat clunky deployment. You have to generate stubs
for your beans
> using a tool called GenIC, edit some configuration files,
stop the server
> and run it again every time you re-deploy. Not terrible
for deployed
> systems, but a huge pain for development.
> - Everything runs in a separate VM. In fact, all the
examples have EACH
> BEAN running in its own server, in its own VM. To run
multiple beans in the
> same VM, you have to edit some configuration files.
> - The JNDI provider is our old friend the RMI registry.
This has several
> limitations, including the fact that you have to have
rmiregistry running
> (presumably in its own VM), and all the classes served up
by rmiregistry
> have to be in the rmiregistry's classpath. It also does
NOT support
> sub-contexts, so JNDI names like "interest/InterestHome"
are impossible.
> - The JoNaS distribution does not ship with a lot of
necessary jars, and you
> have to manually download them from java.sun.com, install
them, and tell the
> config files where they are.
> - No pooling! Ack! Although several EJB resources
(stateless session
> beans, JDBC connections, passivated beans, etc.) are
specifically designed
> to be pooled, JoNaS does NOT do this. This means some
significant
> performance hits compared to EJB servers that pool (which
is just about
> every other one).
>
> jBoss disadvantages:
> - Still somewhat unstable, so if you need rock-solid
performance, you'll
> have to wait (and/or help out!)
> - No distributed transactions. Transactions are capable
of being propagated
> within the same VM only, not to other VM's on the same
machine, and not to
> other machines. Of course, you still have distributed
transactions in terms
> of transactional RESOURCES, so for instance you can still
run your Oracle
> database(s) on different machines. There is talk on the
development group
> about implementing this however.
> - No ability to obtain a UserTransaction from an out-of-VM
client
> (application client). This is not mandated by the J2EE
specification, and
> clients that rely on this behavior are by definition
non-portable, but
> several other EJB containers do provide this service.
>
> In summary, I chose jBoss because of the better standards
compliance, the
> ease of bean development, the richer feature set, the
better performance
> (mainly due to better JNDI implementation and pooling),
and the fact that
> most if not all of the disadvantages I listed above will
most likely
> disappear within the next few months.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Charles
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerzy Brzezicki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "jBoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:25 AM
> Subject: [jBoss-User] jBoss or Enhydra ?
>
>
> > I new to EJB and I am not trying to offend anyone here
with this question
> so don't flame me :)
> > I just need some infromation from people who have
experience with both of
> those servers.
> >
> > Can someone who worked with both servers briefly compare
both of them ?
> > I am going to work with apache+tomcat+ some application
server (jBoss or
> Enhydra) using VAJ.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jerzy
> >
> >
> >
> > --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
----
> > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
----
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
