[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Evaluation
Falko Braeutigam wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Torsten Rüger wrote:
> > IHello,
> > I have evaluated Ozone-DB for a couple of days now and just want to tell
> > you what I think, in the hope it will be useful for you to improve your
> > system.
> >
> > I have choosen not to use it and here is why:
> > -- the architecture is the wrong way around. In ozone the client is dumb
> > (only the data is carried in the proxies) and the server carries the
> > full Object implementation. So I must place my code in the server to be
> > efficient, but I need the result at the client. The better way is to let
> > the server just store data, and have the client do data manipulation.
>
> If the ozone architecture is overall wrong, then the EJB architecture is
> wrong too. Which would mean that 10000s of programmers currently are going in
> the wrong direction ;)
The approach recommended for EJB by the Design Guideline Document is to
pass serialized objects back from a session bean. BTW, I see bunches of
new EJB/J2EE programmers every week in the digitalthink courses.
> > -- the equation one funtion, one transaction is often not true.
> > Especially with the code being on the server, I'd have to collect my
> > data, keep it dumb (in basic types) send it to the server and do the
> > work there. For me a transaction is more often a change in attribute
> > here, an object added there and so on, two or three things together
> > anyway. I loose the "atomic" if I do that on the client.
>
> ozone support explicit transaction demarcation in the client code...
This I believe this was removed from the client in J2EE. Complicated
transactions are not a client programmers responsibility but a bean
provider responsibility so this has been moved to the server.
Complicated transactions can probably encapsulated in one method call
anyway.
Eric :-)