Hi Tom!
On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Tamas! > > Unfortunately, I cannot include my base-jar in both projects, because I > am using Hibernate, which heavily uses caching. Therefore, updates that > are performed by web services are not visible on the web. Having two > versions of a hibernate app accessing the same db is not a good thing to > do (concurrency!). > This is exactly the issue that made me look at JMS/SOAP/RMI/etc. If you > have any idea, how to circumvent this problem, I'd be more that happy to > stick with the single-JVM-approach. Hibernate has pluggable caching. So you can use distributed caching if that is the only concern that you have. For example check out SwarmCache or just google on Hibernate distributed caching. However, I haven't used it cause we haven't used caching (Hibernate didn't had exclusive access to the database) By the way if you decide to go for more JVMs, I would probably use RMI. I would also have a look at Spring's support for remoting because I think you can expose your managed beans easily. I wouldn't use SOAP, it's big strength is that is HTTP based so it can be used by the majority of the clients (isn't blocked by firewalls). And I would choose RMI over CORBA if there are only Java applications involved. This is only my preference list of course try to get as much oppinions as you can ;-) Tamas Regards, > Tom > > Tamas Szabo wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > Is there a reason you can't have all the business service layer in a > Common > > project and include it as a jar in both the web gui an the web services > app? > > I usually use this approach if possible... > > > > I'm interested in what others say about this but I wouldn't go on the > path > > you want to go if it is avoidable. > > > > Tamas > > > > On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Tamas, > >> > >> thanks for your reply. Modularity is not my only concern. I am pretty > >> sure that performance considerations will soon force me to separate the > >> app, since the web services will do lots of number crunching, which in > >> turn, will slow down the entire app. Apart from that, I figured it's a > >> better, cleaner approach plus it's gonna me more stable (I hope), since > >> e.g. if the web services "break" the web gui will not be affected in > any > >> way. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tom > >> > >> Tamas Szabo wrote: > >>> HI, > >>> > >>> Do I understand it correctly? > >>> Do you want to break it up just to ensure that is modular? > >>> > >>> If it isn't a requirement then I wouldn't add some communication layer > >>> between the modules. > >>> Be happy that you have everything in one JVM and you don't have to > deal > >> with > >>> the complexity resulting from ANY of the technologies you mentioned. > >>> > >>> Just my 2 cents, > >>> > >>> Tamas > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/28/06, Tom Ziemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I am a developer, currently working working on a medium scale app. > >> There > >>>> is a base module, which is Spring managed, that handles data access - > a > >>>> web tier and now a couple of web services. Up until now, we deployed > >>>> everything as one application, so communication between the modules > was > >>>> API-based and thus not really an issue. Now I am wondering, whether > it > >>>> is prudent to deploy each module separately and add a communication > >> layer. > >>>> So my question is, whether or not it is sensible to break the app > apart > >>>> (for the sake of modularity) and if so, how the individual components > >>>> should communicate with each other. > >>>> > >>>> - Most of my requests to the business layer will be synchronous, so I > >> am > >>>> not sure whether JMS is the right technology to apply. > >>>> > >>>> - RMI would result in a very tight coupling and I'd be restricted to > >>>> using JAVA everywhere. > >>>> > >>>> - CORBA - haven't used it yet. > >>>> > >>>> - SOAP - great when interoperability is an requirement, lots of > >> overhead > >>>> (XML). > >>>> > >>>> I am not trying to start a rant about which technology is better - I > am > >>>> simply looking for the best solution for my problem. Surely, many of > >> you > >>>> had to make a similar decision at one point or another, so I'd be > >>>> grateful if you would share your experiences and/or advise on how I > >>>> should proceed. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Tom > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
