/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
In most cases, I don't think it is a good idea to create that many entity beans. The creation of an entity bean takes a lot of overhead (this has nothing to do with any remote access). I would have to see some compelling reasons to go through the cost of entity bean creation.
/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community
Originally posted by Bill Bailey:
Ok thanks a lot Thomas.
I guess I understand better your point of view.
The local interface addresses the call problem, but not the object creation problem, so a Java class (Value Object)is still more efficient than a EJB.
I'm quite agree with it, and I was confused due to a couple of articles I've read. For instance, in an article from theServerSide.com : "With the coming of EJB 2.0 CMP enhancements including Local Interfaces, entity beans can now be used to model the domain objects in your designs, as fine-grained as you like"
Moreover, I've never read a book where it is explicitly written not to use the fine-grained approach even in EJB 2.0
Notice that I think the "Core J2EE Pattern (Sun)" does not refer to EJB 2.0 but only 1.1.(actually, I did not finish it yet, but the 187 first pages do refer to EJB 1.1).
Thanks,<br />Mike
Kyle Brown, Author of Persistence in the Enterprise and Enterprise Java Programming with IBM Websphere, 2nd Edition
See my homepage at http://www.kyle-brown.com/ for other WebSphere information.
/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community
As any good architect will tell you, you can't design anything worthwhile unless you know what the thing is to be used for. You should design with the requirements in mind, as well as expected changes in the future, and then try to have a flexible design able to chnage for the unexpected. Good luck!Originally posted by Bill Bailey:
Thus, I can't design full-proof Corporate EJB if I don't even know what they are going to be used for.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community