geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <Alex.Blew...@ioshq.com>
Subject Re: Which EJB container? Which Web container?
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:05:39 GMT
> IHMO, having a Web container running on the same JVM process than EJB
> container should be an option. It can boost performances, but stucks 
> you in
> an architecture that is not very easy to manage.

I'm not sure that I agree with that by default. Yes, it may be 
desirable to have several Web applications talk to the same EJB 
components, but they can do that by JNDI anyway.

In situations I've been in where that approach was chosen, they ran 
into problems with versioning of the EJB components. So yes, in theory, 
it's nice, but in practice having the EJB components and Web components 
in part of the same application guarantees that the versions between 
them are compatible. Administrators may shudder with the idea of 
updating an EJB component (even with a small change) that many web 
applications are depending on it may break with the 'newer' version and 
be a lot harder to fix (especially if they'd not saved the older 
version :-)

> I like the idea to have a EJB server on a specific machine, and other
> machines around the (internal) net talking to this EJB server. What if 
> you
> change an EJB? You'll have to change all the Web Container (and you 
> can have
> many Web container talking to a single EJB container). That means 
> possible
> mistakes, that could be avoided by isolating this EJB Container from 
> Web
> containers.

You'd have to rebuild and/or redeploy the applications, yes. But I 
propose that this situation (where you have multiple Web apps using the 
same EJB apps) happens much less often than having a single Web app 
using a single EJB set.)

Plus, the change of a single EJB may still break other Web apps that 
depend on it ... but that is obviously a management issue.

> Of course, they are different situation where having a Web contaienr 
> and an
> EJB container sharing the same JVM process could be the best solution.

I'd propose that it would certainly be the best/default way (IMHO :-) 
for running an EAR that contains both WAR and EJB-JAR files.

> So : make it optional.

It could certainly come in useful if you want to architect the system 
you describe above, though with the obvious management 
advantages/disadvantages/caveat.

> BTW, IBM allows you to do whatever you want : WEB container on a JVM 
> and EJB
> container on another, or both containers on the same JVM, it's just a
> parameter to set.

Yes, but older versions of WebSphere used to run them in separate 
processes. Now they do allow running the EJBs and Wars in one process, 
and in fact the current best practices suggest to use them in one 
process rather than splitting them.

So, when an EAR contains both WARs and EJB-Jars, deploy them in the 
same VM. But allow for a WAR to be run in a separate VM and EJB-Jar in 
a separate VM when deployed separately.

What I wanted to bring up was that it should be possible to run both in 
the same VM, rather than just going for the separate VM 
but-we-can-run-both-VMs-on-the-same-machine approach.

Alex.


Mime
View raw message