struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dIon Gillard <d...@multitask.com.au>
Subject Re: EJB = bad = MS.net
Date Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:58:47 GMT
Edward Q. Bridges wrote:

>"location independence" means independent of location, that is all. 
>
>if you're implementing two interfaces to do (more or less) the exact same 
>thing, and one is called "local" and one is called "remote" that is 
>absolutely *not*, by any stretch of the imagination,  "location 
>independent". _end of story_.
>
So don't implement the local interface...

>
>with EJBs the method call does not "appear" to be remote, because it is 
>*explicitly* remote.  the method is in a "RemoteInterface" and throws a 
>"RemoteException" for crying out loud!
>
It may not be a 'remote' vm processing the request, it can all still be 
one vm.

>
>furthermore, it's not about box1 vs box12.  to be more precise, it's about 
>vm1 vs. vm12.  and, if you are writing a client, your client has business 
>logic to take care of.  it's the servers responsibility to determine 
>whether it should call a method at vm1 or at vm12.
>
>IMNSHO, this is the achilles heel of EJB.
>
Which part? That's not real clear. The client doesn't have to give a 
toss whether it's local or remote. It can always use the remote 
interface and look the object up.

>--e--
>
>On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 05:24:22 +1100, dIon Gillard wrote:
>
>>The method call can take place anywhere, but always appears to be 
>>remote. That could be many remote machines though. Location independence 
>>is not about local vs remote, it's more about box1 vs box12.
>>
-- 
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
http://www.multitask.com.au/developers




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message