On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Craig Ringer <ringerc_at_ringerc.id.au> wrote:
> On 07/30/2012 09:51 PM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> Like you, more and more I think JSF should not have been into the Web
> Profile. But as we can see today, there are more and more applications with
> NoSQL architecture without JPA/JTA
>
> Just a nit-pick: "NoSQL" in no way means that JTA is useless. XA
> transactions remain useful for any application that needs to make atomic
> (or as-atomic-as-possible) changes to two or more data storage locations,
> at least one of which is transactional.
>
> Similarly, JPA is by no stretch limited to SQL. EclipseLink for example is
> perfectly capable of querying a variety of non-SQL datasources:
>
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/Examples/JPA/NoSQL
>
Yes but that's not part of JPA (it's a proprietary feature)
>
>
> Yes, many developers who've jumped onto the NoSQL bandwagon have thrown
> away most of the existing infrastructure in the process. It remains useful,
> though, JTA in particular.
>
> It seems there's a real need for the EE spec to decide what is and is not
> covered. At what point does a container cease to be a Java EE environment
> and become a collection of home-rolled components?
>
> Personally I don't see a compelling reason to change from the current
> profiles. They're OK, and it's become clear that no profile will ever
> satisfy every user. Profiles are a marketing feature anyway; container are
> entirely free to let you disable unwanted features like JSF, and some
> containers like AS7 do exactly that, only enabling JSF on demand.
>
Unfortunately that's not the case. JBoss 6 EAP doesn't know how to disable
JSF, we need to wait for 6.1 (end of the year, which means an extra year
for my customer with Tomcat & JBoss)
>
> I'm just not seeing the compelling development or operations problem* *being
> solved by a minimal profile. It sounds like no profile will be minimal
> enough unless it's a bare servlet container, in which case why bother?
>
>
> . And we have more and more Web based apps. So, really, if we want a
> profile that doesn't take the UI and the persistence into account (ie. no
> JSF, JSP, JPA, JTA, EJB Lite)... then, there is only Servlet, CDI and Bean
> Validation left.
>
>
> So ... a servlet container with CDI? What's to usefully standardise there?
> And why, when container portability is unlikely to be concern for people
> who're basically rolling their own anyway?
>
>
> With NoSQL applications coming strong (without JSF/JSP in mind) Java EE
> and the Web Profile will be seen as bloated and Tomcat/Jetty will remain
> the preferred app server for deploying "modern applications".
>
>
> Bloat is significantly a matter of perception and implementation, not the
> standard. Being smart about lazily activating components in a container
> gets you a long way, and we're only seeing this beginning to be exploited.
>
> I think Jim Knutson's argument makes sense: Leave it alone until there's a
> decent modularity system so it can be done properly.
>
I completely agree. With a decent modularity system Profiles would even
become useless.... but we don't have it yet. So what could we do to "force"
application servers to be modular but without using a standard API that we
don't have (either using OSGi or a proprietary module system like JBoss) ?
Could the TCK test that an app server "works" with/without such and such
APIs ?
Antonio
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>