>>People imagine them to mean whatever fits their view of the universe, then are disappointed when things don't work out.
I could not have said it better. That's why I thought your article was noble to a large extent.
I agree that we ought to take what works and abandon things that do not. At the same time, I think we need to always be pushing to simplify things so that we can solve bigger problems. No one should have to read a 800 page spec.
I have been stuggling with coming up with a system to accomplish this. I wanted to devise and formalize a method for "How to approach Computer Science as a Scientist." If you would like to participate, I would love that, but if not, you have already helped me greatly and given me hope.
You will probably never know how much your article and this conversation has meant to me, but this has been the first real, rational conversation I have had with someone in IT since graduating from college. Thank you. It has been like breathing fresh air for the first time.
>> EJB was originally for coordinating transactions over multiple XA resources. Are you actually using it for that?
Yes and no.
We have multiple databases on which the application depends but no JCA or anything like that. EJB is used for remoting specifically. I wrote our transaction API to be an abstract factory. The current implementation is based on JTA. The problem that I saw with using both BMT and CMT is that it couples your transaction logic to EJB.
>> I think we're just now getting to the point where we can define what we want and start asking for it.
I hope you are right and I hope you reply again. Thank you. |
java.net RSS Feeds
