Re: The demise of the Oracle professional?

In article <ae56fm$4167m$1_at_ID-87429.news.dfncis.de>, you said (and I quote):
>
> "Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk>
>
> > > 2-tier (client-server) is not enough anymore, you know. How can
> > > you achive load balancing with client-server architecture? How can
> > > you achieve dynamic redeployment (software upgrades while the
> > > system is running)? Fail-over? Clustering? Message-oriented
> > > architecture?
> >
> > Seems to me that that is an argument for n-tier (where n = 3
> > <vbg>) architecture 3-tier is not the same as j2ee.
>
> J2EE is a superset of 3-tier architecture.
> What's your question?

I've got a funny feeling he means: you can NOT claim as a J2EE advantage a bucket load of features that have NOTHING to do with J2EE. But then again, I may be wrong and we're speaking marketish, not English...

>
>
> > Microsoft.com handles load balancing pretty well on the
> > whole. I wouldn't be looking for J2EE in that environment.
>
> DOS applications do their job well too, but the world
> moved forward nonetheless.
>

some would question that "moved forward" right there...

However, once again: there is nothing in J2EE that makes it unique or even original when it comes to load balancing. Old concept. Absolutely nothing to do with J2EE and all to do with app servers.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam