Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On 1/30/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Leon Rosenberg wrote:
| On 1/29/06, David Tonhofer, m-plify S.A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Another 2c: When doing Java, you may want to stay clear of J2EE. I have
| > heard it's the Wooly Mammoth framework and I have so far worked happily
| > without it. I recommend a look at Bruce Tate's pamphlet here:
| >
| > <http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/bfljava/>
| >
|
| Stay clear of J2EE? Not really possible, especially with your book
| recommendation, hibernate and spring are heavily J2EE based. Or did
| you mean EJB?
How are they "J2EE based"?
JDBC is part of J2EE. JTA is part of J2EE. Servlets are part of J2EE.
And spring states itself as:
Welcome to the home of the Spring Framework. As the leading
full-stack Java/J2EE application framework, Spring delivers
significant benefits for many projects, reducing development effort
and costs while improving test coverage and quality.
Some app server marketeers would have you believe that J2EE == EJB and
Sun has not been too vocal about correcting this.
The fact is that EJBs are just the most complex piece of J2EE. App
server vendors love to get you all wrapped up in them because unlike
most everything else in J2EE you need a full blown app server to do
them, so you have to choose one of them once you place EJBs in your
solution. Given that they're the most complex, they're also a piece
that some, if not many, folk truly don't need -- and a piece that has
taken until J2EE 5 to get right (e.g. usable) in the spec (assuming it
is finally right there).
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
