geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What to do with legacy EJB 2.1 code in DayTrader?
Date Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:03:07 GMT

On Jul 27, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I'd like to see the 2.1 code kept around so we can compare base EJB  
> performance against other servers.  There is going to be legacy  
> code for a long time and this tool is our only way to see how  
> legacy code performs on our server.
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Christopher Blythe wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Given Geronimo 2.0 and DayTrader 2.0's focus on Java EE 5, I was  
>> wondering if it made sense to remove the old EJB 2.1 code? To be  
>> quite honest, I am torn. One one side, it would be nice to have  
>> both the EJB 2.1 and 3.0 impls at the same time for comparison  
>> purposes. However, keeping the old stuff around seems to hide the  
>> fact that 3.0 is supposed to be easier to work with and develop.
>>
>> Here are some options along with my own arguments for each...
>>
>> 1) Remove the old EJB 2.1 modes and make DayTrader 2.0 EJB 3 only
>>     - highlights the advantages of EJB 3.0 (less DDs, etc.)
>>     - makes the packaging and various runtime modes less confusing
>>     - can use the DayTrader 1.2 code for comparisons between EJB  
>> 2.1 and 3.0
>>     - EJB 2.1 mode never worked under load to begin with due to  
>> consistency issues
>>
>> 2) Leave 2.1 code in there for now and phase out in a DayTrader 2.X
>>     - comparisons can be done using a single ear
>>     - DT 2.x could be spun up immediately
>>
>> Now that I think about it, I think I'm swaying more towards option  
>> 1. However, given the time constraints to get 2.0 out  the door,  
>> I'm not sure if 1 is realistic.

I like having 2.1 code around, also. I was just using it to identify  
JPA/CMP/Entity problems, yesterday...

One of the strengths of DayTrader is the breadth of technologies that  
it can drive. IMO, it's not intended to be an exemplar of how simple  
it is to write a Java EE 5 applications... I'd be hesitant to lose  
the flexibility that Daytrader gives us. If this flexibility is  
hurting our ability to gather valid performance results or cannot be  
reasonably maintained, then I'm all ears.

--kevan 

Mime
View raw message