> Well, I guess that is one perspective.
>
> One thing I have always wanted was validation at the entity pojo level.
> Which can optionally be adhered to on the web level.
This may relate to where we're coming from. I'm used to doing Java
server-side development without the big J2EE behemoth. From this
perspective, EJB is the point at which one really has to abandon
flexibility and commit to the one true way. EJB 3 claims to fix this,
and it may succeed to a point. I'm not terribly familiar with the
version 3 spec at this point.
Still, I get nervous when Seam's primary stated goal is to integrate JSF
with EJBs. Some things have not changed with EJB3, and I don't really
want to integrate with EJBs. It appears likely that Seam either forces
this, or makes it sufficiently difficult to avoid that it's not a
worthwhile option. So what does that mean? I am not allowed to use
threads. I am not allowed to install a security manager. I am not
allowed to use a custom class loaders. I am not allowed to load a
library with JNI. All of these things are still present in the EJB 3
spec, and these are severely crippling limitations which I don't want to
invite upon myself (especially the bit about threads... what were they
thinking?!?).
> I am excited about using jBPM and jPDL, and I don't consider that
> acronym overload. It just extracts out the business process and page
> navigation layer away from web programming.
I've yet to get a good idea of what these pieces do, and how their
language is superior to Java for defining processes like this. In any
case, I'll just say I'm extremely skeptical about the idea of
abstracting page navigation away from web programming. What would page
navigation even mean in the absence of web programming?
> Lately, Gavin submitted JSR 299 for Web Beans, which is JBoss' attempt
> to make it a product that's not exclusive to JBoss.
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=299
I'll keep an eye on it as well, but it's still married to EJB. I may
just try to take the nice bits of Seam (namely, the conversation stuff)
and implement them for plain JSF via EL resolvers.

Signature
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Danno - 17 Jul 2006 02:11 GMT
> > Well, I guess that is one perspective.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Still, I get nervous when Seam's primary stated goal is to integrate JSF
> with EJBs.
> Some things have not changed with EJB3, and I don't really
> want to integrate with EJBs. It appears likely that Seam either forces
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> invite upon myself (especially the bit about threads... what were they
> thinking?!?).
JNI?!?!?!?! WOW! Well, in a J2EE world, I believe you can create a JMX
object that uses JNI, you can then patch that through into a session
bean. Never attempted it, but for me, it's worth a gander. ;)
> > I am excited about using jBPM and jPDL, and I don't consider that
> > acronym overload. It just extracts out the business process and page
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> just try to take the nice bits of Seam (namely, the conversation stuff)
> and implement them for plain JSF via EL resolvers.
What ORM, do you use, if you do?
> --
> Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
> MindIQ Corporation
Chris Smith - 17 Jul 2006 03:29 GMT
> JNI?!?!?!?! WOW! Well, in a J2EE world, I believe you can create a JMX
> object that uses JNI, you can then patch that through into a session
> bean. Never attempted it, but for me, it's worth a gander. ;)
JNI is rather a minor concern for me. Threads are a huge concern, as
are class loaders and security managers.
> What ORM, do you use, if you do?
Of the two web-based projects I'm involved in, one uses Hibernate 3, and
the other uses a mix between a home-grown object-relational mapper for
certain tasks and plain SQL for others.

Signature
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation