Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ibatis-user-java-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18519 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 19:17:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 19:17:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 47459 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2010 18:15:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ibatis-user-java-archive@ibatis.apache.org Received: (qmail 47440 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2010 18:15:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user-java@ibatis.apache.org Received: (qmail 47433 invoked by uid 99); 7 Apr 2010 18:15:12 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:15:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=10.0 tests=AWL,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of clinton.begin@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.53] (HELO mail-pw0-f53.google.com) (209.85.160.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:15:07 +0000 Received: by pwj10 with SMTP id 10so1277356pwj.12 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=arUi1CVohMGM4DH4xUZCAQSaCfzK2oATbRZhzxTanuw=; b=SA4yeFDfoKyvn1KOygv/E9RIVbbRC6l65vRxhE2YuiRrPD0vrjfaQQpu4q4LutWybj 9niO5A57sTrNb8X9xlFqYim3oYpU/1Y+bUrwL/c+s0/Stmw4W1QQ8q063bacjDL3JeYy VffWKlit/aMFWUNK8DQb3o7pNa3EQzeGsGoqw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=qH73bGeiYvaHbOdMLoK0aa3r+t/qnTMTDbHd2hyRO+ZhoBJ6PFwfXAzc6N5BmimU4p MNPEOA6XoV+rQ4s57B5/yBp0kXYZJc54fnUUH/SLIBibP/rC9fRXEY4V57vO3YGjjCRI QJmDbhdBEfELjyQGLBIIl+AuXqQUD4s98NR4M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.19.193 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:14:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BBCBB9D.7030507@burntmail.com> References: <4BBC0BF3.5050109@bbs.darktech.org> <4BBCBB9D.7030507@burntmail.com> From: Clinton Begin Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:14:26 -0600 Received: by 10.141.108.17 with SMTP id k17mr7883359rvm.38.1270664087276; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: SqlSession.close() without committing To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd13b808d10280483a989d1 --000e0cd13b808d10280483a989d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree, EJB 3 looks very good. But my point was that the first two iterations of the spec didn't help. And if anything, the non-spec driven Spring framework drove EJB 3 to be what it is today. Clinton On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Guy Rouillier wrote: > On 4/7/2010 9:50 AM, Clinton Begin wrote: > >> >> This is what has killed J2EE vs. the alternatives. Look at the history: >> > > Not to start a flame war, but ... > > > >> * CMP - Spec. Dead, along with all implementations. >> >> * EJB - Spec. Dead. Spring killed it -- not a spec. >> > > EJB3 is very much alive. The spec people learned from experience; EJB3 > uses straight POJOs. Spring tries to be all things, and doesn't really do > any of them exceptionally well. I don't use it because of its massive > footprint. Sure, you can use subcomponents in isolation, if you can figure > out how to decompose it. But I prefer targeted tools that do one thing very > well. Hence, my attraction to iBATIS. > > > >> * JDO - Spec. Dead, along with all implementations. >> >> * JSF - DOA. Bad idea to begin with, and has failed to unify client >> side Java. Struts, GWT, Wickett, Stripes, ZK, Tapestry, etc. all still >> exist -- and are more popular than JSF -- all without a spec. >> > > JSF use is increasing, not decreasing. My company has committed to it for > several major projects in the last 6 months alone. We've also used GWT for > other projects. JSF is more of a server-based technology than a client > technology, and different applications may need one approach or the other. > I'm sure each of the tools you list has pluses and minuses; I haven't used > them all. Struts I think has seen its day, and usage is declining in favor > of newer approaches. > > -- > Guy Rouillier > > -- > Guy Rouillier > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-java-unsubscribe@ibatis.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org > > --000e0cd13b808d10280483a989d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree, EJB 3 looks very good.=A0 But my point was that the first two iter= ations of the spec didn't help.=A0 And if anything, the non-spec driven= Spring framework drove EJB 3 to be what it is today.

Clinton
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Guy Rouillier <= span dir=3D"ltr"><guyr-ml1@bur= ntmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2010 9:50 AM, Clinton Begin wrote:

This is what has killed J2EE vs. the alternatives. =A0Look at the history:<= br>

Not to start a flame war, but ...



* CMP - Spec. =A0Dead, along with all implementations.

* EJB - Spec. =A0Dead. =A0Spring killed it -- not a spec.

EJB3 is very much alive. =A0The spec people learned from experience; EJB3 u= ses straight POJOs. =A0Spring tries to be all things, and doesn't reall= y do any of them exceptionally well. =A0I don't use it because of its m= assive footprint. =A0Sure, you can use subcomponents in isolation, if you c= an figure out how to decompose it. =A0But I prefer targeted tools that do o= ne thing very well. =A0Hence, my attraction to iBATIS.



* JDO - Spec. =A0Dead, along with all implementations.

* JSF - DOA. =A0Bad idea to begin with, and has failed to unify client
side Java. =A0Struts, GWT, Wickett, Stripes, ZK, Tapestry, etc. =A0all stil= l
exist -- and are more popular than JSF -- all without a spec.

JSF use is increasing, not decreasing. =A0My company has committed to it fo= r several major projects in the last 6 months alone. =A0We've also used= GWT for other projects. =A0JSF is more of a server-based technology than a= client technology, and different applications may need one approach or the= other. =A0I'm sure each of the tools you list has pluses and minuses; = I haven't used them all. =A0Struts I think has seen its day, and usage = is declining in favor of newer approaches.

--
Guy Rouillier

--
Guy Rouillier


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-java-unsubscribe@ibatis.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org


--000e0cd13b808d10280483a989d1--