hi Kevin,
Could not agree with you more. I am developing a system using EJBs and it takes 2-3
times as much effort to do the same stuff what could have been
done with jsps and servlets. The only saving grace seems to be OR mapping in EJB 2.0
where you can avoid writing JDBC code. I get a feeling of writing
the same code three times ( in xml descriptor, ejb accessor methods, details java
object as dependents cannot be directly exposed).
I think the full use of EJB will come into effect if there are some cool GUI tools
that allow to you drag and drop and wire a business application
with all code automatically generated for you, for most of the code seems to be
mechanical once the design is done.
Would definately like to get a good answer from this forum.
Cheers
Krishnan
-----Original Message-----
From: Duffey, Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:22 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: EJB vs Servlets
Hey all,
I know this is a little off-topic, but seeing as how Orion is about the only
fully compliant EJB server, I figured this would be a better place to ask.
Lately I have talked to a number of people that have been moving towards EJB
and pulled back because they have found it to be more tedious to develop, as
well as the end result was slower than just using Servlets.
I ask this because it appears to me that the servlet engine (at least with
2.2) being able to be failed over, load-balanced, etc, seems to be quite as
capable for scalability and fault-tolerance as the ejb engine used to be. I
do realize that the EJB container offers transaction management, but
connection pooling is available in the servlet engine at the server level as
well. So, if you lose speed in development time and performance, what is the
real benefits of moving to EJB? I should say this with caution..I am sure
the EJB engine/container offers some things the servlet container doesn't,
but I would think its possible to actually put those abilities in the
servlet container.
Anyways..I'll be interested in hearing any feedback on this.
Thanks.
