> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Anders Engström
> The idea is to make the actions "mobile" and move their place > of execution to the EJB-container. This way you minimize the > amount of network use - instead of letting each action look > up resources in the EJB-tier and do RPC (== expensive network > roundtrips), you send the actions to the EJB tier and let > them execute in batch mode. (The same reason you use value > objects instead of letting the web tier access entity beans directly). I guess this is what I see the problem to be. Moving the Action execution framework to the EJB-tier seems like a very bad thing to do IMHO. Sure it eliminates some calls between tiers, but why deploy the EJB tier and Servlet tiers to different VMs? Hasn't this been consistently shown to be a very counter-productive model? Maybe you are faced with a situation where you have no control over the server-side architecture, but it seems like moving the Actions to the EJB-tier is a very bad thing. How would the web view interact with the ValueStack cleanly [could be passed, but man that object will grow quickly in size], how would cookies be set, how would authentication be preserved, what about the configuration, etc... Sure it can probably be done, but I would benchmark the hell out of my app to determine that the extra session bean call (or two) is the problem. It usually isn't. Usually it is the amount of data serialized back and forth (a chain of actions and value stack for example). :-) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
