Hi Philip,
> No, you just don't let the fine-grained objects talk in a fine-grained way
> to the client. As far as the client is concerned, you wrap them up in a
> coarse-grained Session Bean. The fine-grained objects interact with each
> other in the server-side code; this is presumably how MSF works too,
> otherwise it would have the same problems with inefficient fine-grained
> interactions over a network.
Yup, I understand that if my fine-grained Entity Beans are co-located with my
coarse-grained Session Beans and I let the clients talk to only the Session
Beans, it should eliminate most of the network traffic overhead.
But this creates a problem related to the first question I asked in my first
post. As soon as I require *massive* scalability, I may want to distribute the
load across multiple machines. I will end up having the Session Beans running on
machine A and the fine-grained Entity Beans running on machine B. The remote
call overhead comes back.
Besides, when the namespace-based load balancing becomes available (ie. having
multiple objects running on different machines bound under the same name), I can
no longer assume the Session Beans and Entity Beans are co-located.
(Wayne Stidolph told me namespace-based load balancing would be available on
Enhydra Enterprise.)
Hmm, it seems one solution is to have the namespace-based load balancing engine
smart enough to make sure the fine-grained entity beans run with the
coarse-grained session beans on the same VM. (Is it possible, Wayne?)
After these discussions, it seems to me while the issues I raised can be
overcome, these issues are currently not addressed by the EJB architecture.
--
John
----
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
include in the body of the message "unsubscribe jonas-users".
For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
include in the body of the message "help".
