users@glassfish.java.net

Re: your current Glassfish evaluation

From: Felipe Gaúcho <fgaucho_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:57:55 +0100

I missed "resources" in your criteria, like JMS, JavaMail and others.......

and I would replace "lot of documentation" by "quality of documentation"...

* persistence has nothing to do with the container itself, and despite
the embedded frameworks like toplink (Glassfish) and hibernate
(Jboss).. it is not a container evaluation criteria (IMHO).. you can
consider Hibernate or JDO runs on top of Java.. rather than associate
it to a container......

In a same way, you should avoid to evaluate Derby against HSQL or
other DBs that eventually comes pre-configured in a container as part
of the container......

full compliant container should support JPA - and that's it.....


we-services make sense only if you evaluate ws-stack (SOAP) .. because
"REST" may be implemented in pure Http connections.. there is no much
to evaluate about rest..

JEE what ? 4, 5, 6 ?? just be sure to specify a version ...


portability .. it is Java, right ?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, <glassfish_at_javadesktop.org> wrote:
> Ok thank you very much for your very interesting answers. I might re-evaluate glassfish with your help.
>
> Actually, we have eliminated all app servers not meeting these essential requirements:
> •       JEE application server
> •       free and open-source
> •       lot of documentation
> •       load balancing
> •       EJB3
> •       persistence
> •       web services
> •       portability