Re: RAC vs. J2EE

GreyBeard apparently said,on my timestamp of 18/02/2005 2:55 PM:

> Fair warning - while it says J2EE is too heavy for most applications (and
> Entity EJBs are good for nothing) it does advocate 'yet another method'.
 >
> Fortunately that method is considerably lighter and more versatile - you
> can actually maintain apps written in it and even implement customer
> changes. Unfortunately it still does not ack that a database can be used
> as something more than a bit bucket.

<rant>
Fair enough. If it works, I'm all for it. The current stuff is a disaster. As for the database treatment, I can live with that if the rest is minimally usable. What I saw so far is just deranged:

7 major projects in 4 years. 5 in J2EE, 2 in Forms. The J2EE ones failed except one. All the Forms ones succeeded and resulted in production systems. I was responsible for db design and analysis of the Forms and J2EE that succeeded, while "architect" geniuses were responsible for the J2EE ones. One of the J2EE failures was a COMPLETE re-rewrite, not even one single line of code recovered... QED

> and consultant; it discusses the Java bloat intelligently; and it does
> explain, in terms even management can understand, that many J2EE apps are
> unmaintainable.

as we found out the hard way!

> from BEA frequenting our newsgroup). The rest have read the pattern books
> and are busy using those patterns.

well, most of those I know just cut and paste code. I'd settle for them at least UNDERSTANDING the patterns...

> Sadly, most don't understand databases and apparently the majority of
> those few who do are paid to be 'database neutral', thereby duplicating in
> the middle tier what the database does most naturally.

Most infuriating.

</rant> Received on Fri Feb 18 2005 - 10:42:32 CST