Petr Kleja

Ankit Garg wrote:

Sharon whipple wrote:Bad news for Java developers and the open source world...
oracle is expert in buying good applications/companies and mess them up...

I am starting to learn c#

Brian Legg wrote:I already know C#, VB.NET, and MOSS so I'm good

Stop scaring the hell out of me. I don't want to learn C# or any other Microsoft technologies. Microsoft is too restrictive. Even the most basic certification from microsoft needs 1 year experience (this is what I was told by my friends who work on ASP .Net). Its just too much for people like us to handle...

You are partially right. It is hard to handle all these technologies but nowadays we have no other choice than to know both side of the river :-)

Petr
(SCJP, SCBCD, SCWCD, SCMAD, SCEA, SCDJWS, MCTS, MCPD)

Originally posted by Theodore Casser:
For what it's worth, I got an email response from Sun Learning yesterday that "It would be highly unusual for a SCEA 5.0 upgrade exam not to be released. Please be patient. The upgrade exams are typically released shortly after the standard exam is offered. (After the beta phase)"

So, I wouldn't worry so much.

Nice to hear it.
But let us be more pragmatic. You want to be SCEA 5.0 as soon as possible I see. Ok. But are you really ready for it ? The main difference between old and new one has to be in using of a new EJB 3.0 persistence model and other things like AJAX and so on. It completely redesign architecture between layers. There is no more need to create "custom" value objects for instance etc.
I am working on a project with EJB 3.0 almost all the year and I think before going to SCEA 5.0 a responsible professional should upgrade his/her SCBCD to EJB 3.0. That will certainly be my first step, because I am already thoroughly prepared for it. Next step could be SCWCD with AJAX etc.
That is my 2 cents to eager 5.0 architects :-)

Petr
SCEA/SCBCD/SCJP/SCDJWS/SCMAD/SCWCD
MCP(70-536)
(also IBM iSeries Developer - 15 years :-))

Originally posted by Theodore Casser:


I think then that we ought to start lobbying them in the near future. Perhaps see how many SCEAs are interested in having some form of simplified upgrade path. After all, the other exams have it...

I think there is no need to recertificate for us who already are SCEA. I think that to be an SCEA means besides other things the fact an architect is the proof of ability and capability to absorb and perceive new technologies and trends in order to make right decisions and judgements. Besides this note I think nobody has time to recertificate. It is better to learn something new also about other technologies. Believe me. It gives you a lot of different new views and ideas.
But generally speaking I am not against possibility for recertification in part 1.

Petr
SCEA/SCBCD/SCDJWS/SCJP/SCMAD/SCWCD
MCP(70-536)

I also used my Prometric ID.

Good luck !

Petr
SCEA/SCJP/SCBCD/SCWCD/SCMAD/SCDJWS
MCP(70-536)

I used StarUML and I was quite happy. You have to try all the UML tools and then it is on you which one suits you the most.
I wish you good work during designing of UML diagrams. It took me 3 months of midnight hours :-)

Petr
SCEA/SCJP/SCBCD/SCWCD/SCMAD/SCDJWS
MCP(70-536)

Congratulations !

Petr Kleja (SCEA,SCBCD,SCJP,SCWCD,SCMAD,SCDJWS)

Thank you very much for your answer.

Hello,

I am posting the following questions and notes for second time because there is now so much new topics because of the new book.

Hello Debu,

I see from your previous reply that your book contains a lot of apendices (including annotation reference). It is a good idea.
According my knowledge I think one of very good features in EJB 3.0 is using of extended persistence context and interceptors. I am very glad about this improvement.
My question are :

1. Do you subscribe mentioned topics in more details ?

2. Is already possible to create custom annotation with interceptor functionality ?

3. Is already possible to have REQUIRED attribute for let's say just one "finalization" method like bookSeats() in the case of STATELESS session bean ? (other methods before this final would be run without transaction context - transactional attribute for a bean is NOT_SUPPORTED and because of that all transaction would be queued and processed just in the final method).
As well as I know there were some talks about this in EJB 3.0 Expert Group. So far it is possible only for STATEFUL session beans and I completely agree with that. I do not think it is good idea to put it into stateless session bean.

Regards,

Petr Kleja

SUN Certified Enterprise Architect
SUN Certified Business Component Developer
SUN Certified Developer For Java Web Services
SUN Certified Programmer
SUN Certified Web Component Developer
SUN Certified Mobile Application Developer

Hello Debu,

I see from previous reply that your book contains a lot of apendices (including annotation reference). It is a good idea.
According my knowledge I think one of very good features in EJB 3.0 is using of extended persistence context and interceptors. I am very glad about this improvement.
My question are :

1. Do you subscribe mentioned topics in more details ?

2. Is already possible to create custom annotation with interceptor functionality ?

3. Is already possible to have REQUIRED attribute for let's say just one "finalization" method like bookSeats() in the case of STATELESS session bean ? (other methods before this final would be run without transaction context - transactional attribute for a bean is NOT_SUPPORTED and because of that all transaction would be queued and processed just in the final method).
As well as I know there were some talks about this in EJB 3.0 Expert Group. So far it is possible only for STATEFUL session beans and I completely agree with that. I do not think it is good idea to put it into stateless session bean.

Regards,

Petr Kleja

SUN Certified Enterprise Architect
SUN Certified Business Component Developer
SUN Certified Developer For Java Web Services
SUN Certified Programmer
SUN Certified Web Component Developer
SUN Certified Mobile Application Developer

Congratulations Deepak

Great score.
I have been waiting for the results for 3 weeks. So I still have to be patient.
Btw. how long were you waiting for the results ?
Is it correct that my status for part II is : pending ?
I hope so.

Once more againg, congrats,

Petr
SCJP, SCBCD, SCWCD, SCMAD, SCDJWS, SCEA-I

Hi David,

my SD's are also quite loaded, so I have decided not to insert Service Locator and so on. I will explain it in a document. It is very dependent on the detail level of your solution. You should show such components which plays the most import role in your design.

Petr

SCJP, SCBCD, SCMAD, SCDJWS, SCWCD, SCEA-I

Originally posted by Cleuton Sampaio:
Hi,

Thank you all.

Petr,

.
.
.
.

Hello Cleuton,

thank you for your really professional answer.
Yes your are absolutely right about performance isue.
I am not allowed here, you know, to show solution, but generally speaking both of us are right. I had same dilemma. You were certainly too thinking about other issue like "who" will manage and write business logic when new business request comes later (like new kinds of freq. flyer offers and so on). From this point of view I have chosen mixture of old and new solution.

Thank you for your answer. I am working in very productive real-time environment so I am very sensitive for good and fast and reliable solution. We can discuss about it later after I pass.

Enjoy your free time and have 3 beers for me now :-))

Congratulations Cleuton !!!

I am also in a phase of completing part 2. It is going to take me at least 2 another weeks.
I think SLSB is the solution where you could lost a lot of points.
I go for SFSB. It is more scalable and more controllable.
Maybe you did not take in account create profile procedure at all. I mean usually when you want to register you are asked to enter email address etc.
SFSB is much more scalable solution. I do not want to go into details. I am very happy with my solution. I am very happy because I have really learnt to architecture and I feel confidence in my solution :-)
When I pass we can fight against each other in private mails with our different solutions :-))

Petr

SCJP, SCBCD, SCDJWS, SCMAD, SCWCD, SCEA-I

Originally posted by Alex Li:
Hi,

For StarUML user, first click the arrow, choose ActionKind to "SEND" instead of "CALL". The bracket can be omitted.

Hi Alex,

attention, if I would change from CALL to SEND, it would become an asynchronous message. At last I have a chance to return your last help to me :-)
So the problem still remains. If I want to have full arrow (a synchronous call) I can not get function brackets of.
Anywaz thank you very much. Please let me know if you find a solution but I already think there is no way to get rid of them.

I wish a nice weekend,

Petr

In a sequence diagram I have interaction arrow with a method name, BUT I want to enter ordinary name without brackets because I do not want to limit implementation phase. So instead of having enterOrder() just enterOrder.
I think there is no possibility to get brackets of.
Can anybody help ?

Petr (SCJP, SCBCD, SCWCD, SCMAD, SCDJWS, SCEA-I)