On Thursday 25 November 2004 02:20, El Quijote wrote: > Can I not achieve exchangeability simply by encapsulating Java-Objects > and using well defined interfaces?
If you manufacture both the bolt and the nut at the same time, this is of course no problem. But if true component oriented programming is going to emerge (no matter what people say; It doesn't exist today.) that is not feasible. Tools and runtime platforms must be able to juggle the component as an entity, and make it fit into a large picture without any modifications. Avalon tried to start that journey. > How does Avalon compare to the EJB-concept? Is it comparable at all? EJB is also based on the notion of component oriented programming, but fails fairly miserable, as it sacrifices both proper OO as well as COP principles, with its persistent Bean-centric view of applications. Avalon has been accused of tight integration of components to the framework... Apparently not from EJB developers, since not only are you very stuck to the EJB model once you do extends EJBHome. If you try to develop an application that is not transaction driven (Request/Response) with J2EE you will soon see how miserable the states are in that platform. It is funny to see J2EE developers be amazed over the elegance of Metro/Magic applications. :o) Cheers Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
