Talk:Enterprise JavaBean
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Applications
The writeup is too technical. The whole EJB concept is useless if it can't relate to real world applications. Sltan 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the first half of the article, hopefully it is a bit more comprehensible now. More improvements would be welcome, as always. --Marlow4 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More info about EJB3
It could be intresting having mre infos about EJB3
[edit] EJB criticism?
Someone more knowledgeable than me should write a section on EJB criticism. There is a widespread belief that the EJB model is flawed (a lot of programmers I know won't touch an Entity Bean, though they find uses for Session Beans).
As an example, we have this statement by blog by Bruce Eckel:
We now know that EJB 1 & 2 were based on an entirely flawed set of use cases. Because of the damage this (still slowly dawning) realization has wrought to Sun's reputation, it's hard to know whether EJB3, which probably should have been called something else to disassociate it with the failures of its predecessors, will succeed, despite the fact that EJB3 is like a breath of fresh air.
If you read well in the article is written "EJBs should be used in large, distributed, transaction-intensive enterprise scenarios where scalability is a key factor." if the application is "easy" yo have not to use EJB
- Also the EJB3 spec addresses most of the criticisms (which as you say were myriad and justified) of the earlier specs. So a "criticism" section would be fairly moot now (widespread criticisms of EJB3 have yet to surface and IMHO are unlikely). Either way though, the amount of criticism EJB 2 & 2.1 got and how that led to the massive changes in 3 would be important material to detail in the article. --Marlow4 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rename to Enterprise JavaBean
I think this article should be moved to Enterprise JavaBean instead of using the plural. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- The whole technology is "Enterprise JavaBeans technology", the specification is "Enterprise JavaBeans" and the common usage is overwhelmingly "Enterprise JavaBeans" ("enterprise javabeans": 2,000,000 vs "enterprise javabean": 257,000). Pimlottc 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spring
Rod Johnson, the guy that started off the Spring_framework is very critical of EJB - that's one of the reasons why he started Spring (called Expert One-on-One originally)
- Things do change with time, though; the new EJB 3.0 APIs in many ways more closely ressemble Spring (both use POJOs and support dependency injection) more than the old EJB 2.1 spec (which was rife with required interfaces, parent classes, and checked exceptions). So Spring can be called a rejection of EJB, or an inspiration for EJB, depending on which version you're talking about. --Marlow4 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect from EJB Container
I just searched for "EJB-Container", but i was redirected to this page (EJB). Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea to spent an own article to EJB-Container, not just a redirect. What do you think? (Jochen)
[edit] The Name
Those who are not immersed in the JavaCulture won't know anything about the technology from the name Enterprise Java Beans, as the name is semantically content-free. It's cute and all, and that's good for marketing, but what meme is triggered by the name?
[edit] Metaphorical Understanding
A significant population exists that is more familiar with Microsoft's offerings. Could someone please add a paragraph showing what in the .NET Framework correponds to Enterprise Java Beans, if any, and vice versa?
- I know almost nothing about the Microsoft platform, but from what I do understand the nearest equivalent to EJB would probably be DCOM. --Marlow4 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
