tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan S. Fisher" <>
Subject Re: TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?
Date Sat, 24 Oct 2015 13:25:55 GMT
Talk about putting the cart before the horse: they're going for the "Big
Bang Architecture" instead of growing it organically. Sounds like a
disaster. SOA and performance can't be used in the same sentence unless
it's a joke. WS-* are re-inventions of everything that REST and HTTP(s)
does quite effectively. Your application server *shouldn't* really be doing
load balancing, especially when products like HAProxy can do it better and
faster. Nor should it be a CA or KMS (Those should be terminated *before* the
application tier). DDL should be managed with a tool like Liquibase. The
only thing an application server should do is run applications effectively.

I would try to push them away from the SOA dream. Modern software
architectures I would describe as being: miniature, minimal, simplistic,
monolithic but composed (of small testable modules), and distributed (many
copies of the same thing across cheap hardware).

To answer your question though, Yes, TomEE is perfectly capable of
supporting nearly all of those things. Some of it you'll have to build,
some of it is built-in. I would look at the TomEE documentation page and
see what's lacking.

IBM WebSphere is probably the *only* container capable of fulfilling 100%
of those things out of the box, but it's not pleasant to deal with, nor is
fast, nor cheap, nor stable, and it doesn't do anything of those things
well. (WebSphere is designed to fulfill contractual obligations for a sales
organization, actually be a good piece of software seems to be a secondary

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 2015 7:09 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mikael
> >
> > Let s try to answer even if it looks like a spam: if you ask precise
> > questions instead of asking us to do your work we can refine what we
> > already said you if needed.
> +1 Does look like spam.

Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this 
transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject 
to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the 
message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil 
penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the 
sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from 
any computer.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message