大家都是搞技术的 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

1 楼

观点不同可以讨论,可以摆事实,搞得象文科傻妞一样拿"it's a joke"
或者"you don't know anything"来做挡箭牌就不但没劲,而且徒显虚弱
而已 -- 如果我的论点如此可笑,你作为一个有很多"hands on"经验的专家
应该很容易用事实驳倒才对,你有工夫写四五个帖子来反复声称我完全
不懂,但却忽略我每一个回贴的大多数具体论点,也举不出一个事实来具体
反驳我引用的东西不对,也说不出来你认为更好的办法有什么,到底谁是
joke,不是很明显的吗?
EJB搞了这么多年,一团乱麻.EJB 3.0的改动根本不是什么小修小补,而是
基本结构的变化,还兼并了JDO (JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
这些ORM产品的很大影响),这就说明大家都认识到EJB 2.0以前的东西根本不
对头,非要有根本改变不能解决现在J2EE在结构上碰到的问题. 而EJB 3.0现在
所提议的改动很多都是从象Hibernate或者Spring这些项目来的,比如新的IoC
支持.这就说明这些项目走的路子是对的,或者至少不会比现有的EJB差.

d*s2005-04-08 07:04

2 楼

You always make me laughing...if JDO has a parent, no matter the
parent is ADO/ADO.Net. "JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
这些ORM产品的很大影响", ha ha ha ha

【在 m******t 的大作中提到】

: 观点不同可以讨论,可以摆事实,搞得象文科傻妞一样拿"it's a joke"
: 或者"you don't know anything"来做挡箭牌就不但没劲,而且徒显虚弱
: 而已 -- 如果我的论点如此可笑,你作为一个有很多"hands on"经验的专家
: 应该很容易用事实驳倒才对,你有工夫写四五个帖子来反复声称我完全
: 不懂,但却忽略我每一个回贴的大多数具体论点,也举不出一个事实来具体
: 反驳我引用的东西不对,也说不出来你认为更好的办法有什么,到底谁是
: joke,不是很明显的吗?
: EJB搞了这么多年,一团乱麻.EJB 3.0的改动根本不是什么小修小补,而是
: 基本结构的变化,还兼并了JDO (JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
: 这些ORM产品的很大影响),这就说明大家都认识到EJB 2.0以前的东西根本不

r*l2005-04-08 07:04

3 楼

Agree your first part. We should all respect each other here.
About EJB, again please please sperate stateless session bean and entity bean.
Entity bean has been proved to be a failed experiment. No need to argue more
about it.
Stateless session bean is quite handy and perform well. There are so many
succesful larger system running on top of stateless session bean. Also,
stateless session bean does not mean you have to use DTO. You can implement
your business object as POJO, service facacde and

【在 m******t 的大作中提到】

: 观点不同可以讨论,可以摆事实,搞得象文科傻妞一样拿"it's a joke"
: 或者"you don't know anything"来做挡箭牌就不但没劲,而且徒显虚弱
: 而已 -- 如果我的论点如此可笑,你作为一个有很多"hands on"经验的专家
: 应该很容易用事实驳倒才对,你有工夫写四五个帖子来反复声称我完全
: 不懂,但却忽略我每一个回贴的大多数具体论点,也举不出一个事实来具体
: 反驳我引用的东西不对,也说不出来你认为更好的办法有什么,到底谁是
: joke,不是很明显的吗?
: EJB搞了这么多年,一团乱麻.EJB 3.0的改动根本不是什么小修小补,而是
: 基本结构的变化,还兼并了JDO (JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
: 这些ORM产品的很大影响),这就说明大家都认识到EJB 2.0以前的东西根本不

c*s2005-04-08 07:04

4 楼

发现这里以傻笑开始和结束的文章都冠着你的大名。
jdo1.0上jsr之前jdo只是个名字，没统一标准但也是大名鼎鼎，在很多项目中能体现出来
。比如OJB和Castor里都有自己写的JDO的包（名字就叫jdo），最新的OJB里已经没有了但
如果checkout两年前源码的应该还能看到，Castor立至今还有。这些工具最初的设计多少
受ODMG的影响（OJB就是ODMG启动的）,他们核心的概念就是曾经风靡一时但后来失败的OO
DB。OODB非常先进以至于和当时现状脱节，但其思想始终影响着软件的发展。
EJB设计的失败是明显的。甚至有人写过"J2EE without EJB"和用JDO重写EJB实现的书。
原因就是这么多的OR Mapping工具显然是朝着相似的方向发展，只有EJB自成一套，还特
复杂。就像前面谁说过的，成功的JSR不是创建新的概念，而是把已有的一些的想法标准
化，方便大家使用。

【在 d****s 的大作中提到】

:
: You always make me laughing...if JDO has a parent, no matter the
: parent is ADO/ADO.Net. "JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
: 这些ORM产品的很大影响", ha ha ha ha

d*s2005-04-08 07:04

5 楼

来
但
少
OO
Of course you can tracing ADO, JDO's conecpt to their ancestors. But
Sun rushed to unveil a unmutual JDO, following the exact concepts with
ADO/ADO.NET, is because ADO/ADO.NET is out. This happens serveral times.
That is also why we can have JSF. Of course you can claim Event driven
is not from MS. But can you deny that ASP.NET is the parent of JSF?
That guy made it funny, not only this. I don't know if he knew that.
He even claimed JDO is effected by Hibernate.
Castor JDO is not anoth

【在 c*****s 的大作中提到】

:
: 发现这里以傻笑开始和结束的文章都冠着你的大名。
: jdo1.0上jsr之前jdo只是个名字，没统一标准但也是大名鼎鼎，在很多项目中能体现出来
: 。比如OJB和Castor里都有自己写的JDO的包（名字就叫jdo），最新的OJB里已经没有了但
: 如果checkout两年前源码的应该还能看到，Castor立至今还有。这些工具最初的设计多少
: 受ODMG的影响（OJB就是ODMG启动的）,他们核心的概念就是曾经风靡一时但后来失败的OO
: DB。OODB非常先进以至于和当时现状脱节，但其思想始终影响着软件的发展。
: EJB设计的失败是明显的。甚至有人写过"J2EE without EJB"和用JDO重写EJB实现的书。
: 原因就是这么多的OR Mapping工具显然是朝着相似的方向发展，只有EJB自成一套，还特
: 复杂。就像前面谁说过的，成功的JSR不是创建新的概念，而是把已有的一些的想法标准

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

6 楼

Thanks for supporting my point right under it.

【在 d****s 的大作中提到】

:
: 来
: 但
: 少
: OO
: Of course you can tracing ADO, JDO's conecpt to their ancestors. But
: Sun rushed to unveil a unmutual JDO, following the exact concepts with
: ADO/ADO.NET, is because ADO/ADO.NET is out. This happens serveral times.
: That is also why we can have JSF. Of course you can claim Event driven
: is not from MS. But can you deny that ASP.NET is the parent of JSF?

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

7 楼

bean.
Since this current thread is about hibernate, it's probably appropriate
to assume we are comparing it with entity bean.
Nonetheless, when I said "EJB is a mess", I actually meant for both
session bean and entity bean.
But on different levels. The problem with session bean, especially
stateless session bean, has been summarized by Martin Fowler very
precisely here: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html,
the essence of which is this:
Now, the more common mistake is to give

【在 r***l 的大作中提到】

: Agree your first part. We should all respect each other here.
: About EJB, again please please sperate stateless session bean and entity bean.
: Entity bean has been proved to be a failed experiment. No need to argue more
: about it.
: Stateless session bean is quite handy and perform well. There are so many
: succesful larger system running on top of stateless session bean. Also,
: stateless session bean does not mean you have to use DTO. You can implement
: your business object as POJO, service facacde and

c*s2005-04-08 07:04

8 楼

出
了
多
的
你在说jdo is released because of ADO/ADO.net，不是别的任何技术。这是一个很难让
被别人接受的观点。
jdo里的概念好久好久以前就在发展, 这些年体现在这么多项目上，一点一点的在各自项
目里朝一致的方向变化，现在终于形成标准。今天你突然站出来说不对,
你们都错了，jdo release的真正原因是ADO。听说hibernate和toplink对jdo的设计有影
响就会大笑，然后不断的转移话题。在我看来，这是哗众取宠和自作聪明。
又转移话题，和jsf啥关系啊。
既然你问了，我的答案是“是的”。我不认为"ASP.NET is the parent of JSF"。和jdo
一样，概念已存在多时，JSF是把它标准化。struts和JSF的关系我想不用解释，我建议你
看一下tapestry。
http://castor.codehaus.org/api/ 仔细看看它有没有实现javax.jdo包。再到CVS上看看
源码的历史，看看org.exolab.castor.jdo什么时候出来的。
书
还
标

【在 d****s 的大作中提到】

:
: 来
: 但
: 少
: OO
: Of course you can tracing ADO, JDO's conecpt to their ancestors. But
: Sun rushed to unveil a unmutual JDO, following the exact concepts with
: ADO/ADO.NET, is because ADO/ADO.NET is out. This happens serveral times.
: That is also why we can have JSF. Of course you can claim Event driven
: is not from MS. But can you deny that ASP.NET is the parent of JSF?

r*l2005-04-08 07:04

9 楼

Technology debate is always not black or white. It is something in between.
You can argue from either way. However, looks like you only see one side of
the story.
Fowler never said that a service layer is unnecessary. Actually in his book,
there's a pattern about the service layer. He claimed once the domain logic is
more complex, a service layer can be used to address the business logic cross
different domain object. True or false?
The answer is true.
Business logic about a specific POJO should

【在 m******t 的大作中提到】

:
: bean.
: Since this current thread is about hibernate, it's probably appropriate
: to assume we are comparing it with entity bean.
: Nonetheless, when I said "EJB is a mess", I actually meant for both
: session bean and entity bean.
: But on different levels. The problem with session bean, especially
: stateless session bean, has been summarized by Martin Fowler very
: precisely here: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html,
: the essence of which is this:

j*l2005-04-08 07:04

10 楼

I agree with rekal. There is no absolute in any techonology or design pattern.
It all dependents on project properties, legacy system, co-worker experience,
deadline, learn curve, even business partner's choice. And sometimes the
desicion is not even made by technical people. You can never under-estimate
the influence of big companies and boss's personal favorite.
As to my knowledge, EJB is suitable for big companies having a large developer
team whereas hibernate is good for quick developement

【在 r***l 的大作中提到】

: Technology debate is always not black or white. It is something in between.
: You can argue from either way. However, looks like you only see one side of
: the story.
: Fowler never said that a service layer is unnecessary. Actually in his book,
: there's a pattern about the service layer. He claimed once the domain logic is
: more complex, a service layer can be used to address the business logic cross
: different domain object. True or false?
: The answer is true.
: Business logic about a specific POJO should

d*s2005-04-08 07:04

11 楼

They don't believe that. Just trust some open source developers,
believing EJB was a wrong story. Well, I might be wrong. They may
be working with some products, but definitely have no architect
skills. They don't understand although so many people blame EJB,
EJB still widely used in industries. They don't know hacking style
is abosulatly prohibted in real business.
EJB was not wrong. New concepts are good, but the old not wrong.
New EJB is just improving the old.
Most current light weight cont

【在 r***l 的大作中提到】

: Technology debate is always not black or white. It is something in between.
: You can argue from either way. However, looks like you only see one side of
: the story.
: Fowler never said that a service layer is unnecessary. Actually in his book,
: there's a pattern about the service layer. He claimed once the domain logic is
: more complex, a service layer can be used to address the business logic cross
: different domain object. True or false?
: The answer is true.
: Business logic about a specific POJO should

d*s2005-04-08 07:04

12 楼

pattern.
experience,
developer
project.
new
Agree with you in most points, but not the last sentence. EJB3.0 container
will
not be mutual enough within 2 years. Go ahead with EJB 2.0.

【在 j*****l 的大作中提到】

: I agree with rekal. There is no absolute in any techonology or design pattern.
: It all dependents on project properties, legacy system, co-worker experience,
: deadline, learn curve, even business partner's choice. And sometimes the
: desicion is not even made by technical people. You can never under-estimate
: the influence of big companies and boss's personal favorite.
: As to my knowledge, EJB is suitable for big companies having a large developer
: team whereas hibernate is good for quick developement

o*e2005-04-08 07:04

13 楼

I'm not MS savvy, but ADO.net seems nothing like JDO.
O/R mapping isn't popular in MS camp, so I heard.

【在 c*****s 的大作中提到】

:
: 出
: 了
: 多
: 的
: 你在说jdo is released because of ADO/ADO.net，不是别的任何技术。这是一个很难让
: 被别人接受的观点。
: jdo里的概念好久好久以前就在发展, 这些年体现在这么多项目上，一点一点的在各自项
: 目里朝一致的方向变化，现在终于形成标准。今天你突然站出来说不对,
: 你们都错了，jdo release的真正原因是ADO。听说hibernate和toplink对jdo的设计有影

g*y2005-04-08 07:04

14 楼

Agree. 在技术版争对错是相当无聊的事. 技术不是理论, 没有绝对的黑白
分明. 如果你真是高手, 你会挑最顺手的工具, 而不会去捡个最牛逼的工具.
如果真是高手, 你发表完意见, 不会去逼人认可你的观点 -- 正确不是靠
大棒和嘲笑争取来的.

【在 m******t 的大作中提到】

: 观点不同可以讨论,可以摆事实,搞得象文科傻妞一样拿"it's a joke"
: 或者"you don't know anything"来做挡箭牌就不但没劲,而且徒显虚弱
: 而已 -- 如果我的论点如此可笑,你作为一个有很多"hands on"经验的专家
: 应该很容易用事实驳倒才对,你有工夫写四五个帖子来反复声称我完全
: 不懂,但却忽略我每一个回贴的大多数具体论点,也举不出一个事实来具体
: 反驳我引用的东西不对,也说不出来你认为更好的办法有什么,到底谁是
: joke,不是很明显的吗?
: EJB搞了这么多年,一团乱麻.EJB 3.0的改动根本不是什么小修小补,而是
: 基本结构的变化,还兼并了JDO (JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
: 这些ORM产品的很大影响),这就说明大家都认识到EJB 2.0以前的东西根本不

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

15 楼

Could you point out which side of the story I'm not seeing?
There is a difference between "not seeing both sides" and "having
seen both sides but prefering and hence arguing for one side",
wouldn't you agree?
I am not sure where you are going with this - exactly *when* and *where*
did I ever say or imply "a service layer is unnecessary"?
All I was saying was stateless session beans are being abused and overloaded
with way too much business logic which should have been kept in domain model.
That

【在 r***l 的大作中提到】

: Technology debate is always not black or white. It is something in between.
: You can argue from either way. However, looks like you only see one side of
: the story.
: Fowler never said that a service layer is unnecessary. Actually in his book,
: there's a pattern about the service layer. He claimed once the domain logic is
: more complex, a service layer can be used to address the business logic cross
: different domain object. True or false?
: The answer is true.
: Business logic about a specific POJO should

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

16 楼

I agree with this, too. Although it does not have anything to do
with what we have been debating about.
Do you think EJB == entity bean? Because if not, I don't know where
the value is in comparing it with hibernate.

【在 j*****l 的大作中提到】

: I agree with rekal. There is no absolute in any techonology or design pattern.
: It all dependents on project properties, legacy system, co-worker experience,
: deadline, learn curve, even business partner's choice. And sometimes the
: desicion is not even made by technical people. You can never under-estimate
: the influence of big companies and boss's personal favorite.
: As to my knowledge, EJB is suitable for big companies having a large developer
: team whereas hibernate is good for quick developement

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

17 楼

They actually did have at least the basic OR mapping support
for quite a while - I remember Visual Studio 6 supports
binding tables to classes, and some code generationg. I haven't
been following ADO or ADO.NET for a while, so I don't know if
they added the support for complex relationship mapping.

【在 o***e 的大作中提到】

: I'm not MS savvy, but ADO.net seems nothing like JDO.
: O/R mapping isn't popular in MS camp, so I heard.

a*a2005-04-08 07:04

18 楼

说句实话感觉是你最先跳出来说EJB是个错误，是失败的设计。新的EJB还是失败。
EJB/J2EE使许多人吃饭的工具,难怪有人不舒服.
说老实话我虽然不是100%依赖EJB/J2ee吃饭，但它还是我饭碗里的一个重要
的菜。因此我觉得你的这些论断是很Joke的。赫赫。
话说回来，一些Open Source的人要推自己的结构和成果，自然也站在另外
的一个角度，说EJB是个彻底失败的设计，就是一个例子。其实失败还是
成功，还得看用户的使用。如果从这个角度出发，那么EJB虽然复杂，但
依然是个很成功的设计，至少成功地抵制了.Net的进攻，也树立了自己的
地位。技术都是向前发展的。当新技术出来的时候，一味贬低老技术，
称之为失败，是很没有道理的。

【在 m******t 的大作中提到】

: 观点不同可以讨论,可以摆事实,搞得象文科傻妞一样拿"it's a joke"
: 或者"you don't know anything"来做挡箭牌就不但没劲,而且徒显虚弱
: 而已 -- 如果我的论点如此可笑,你作为一个有很多"hands on"经验的专家
: 应该很容易用事实驳倒才对,你有工夫写四五个帖子来反复声称我完全
: 不懂,但却忽略我每一个回贴的大多数具体论点,也举不出一个事实来具体
: 反驳我引用的东西不对,也说不出来你认为更好的办法有什么,到底谁是
: joke,不是很明显的吗?
: EJB搞了这么多年,一团乱麻.EJB 3.0的改动根本不是什么小修小补,而是
: 基本结构的变化,还兼并了JDO (JDO的制定本身就是受到hibernate和TopLink
: 这些ORM产品的很大影响),这就说明大家都认识到EJB 2.0以前的东西根本不

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

19 楼

我对EJB的评价不是我独创的,而且是对事不对人.我的原贴批评的是有人不就事
论事,没有基于技术的讨论,只会攻击别人的经验(就好象别人作过什么项目有
多少经验他比人家还清楚).
我做过而且现在还在做EJB的项目,我也相信以后还会要做,
所以要说饭碗,EJB也是我的饭碗之一.但是这和我对EJB的技术看法
没有关系.如果说因为要靠EJB吃饭就不能批评EJB,也不去关注
新的技术,最后吃亏的还是自己.
就是说你看一项技术好不好不是从技术角度评价的,而是看
"我靠不靠它吃饭".别人说EJB不好,就是要砸你的饭碗,就是
joke?
EJB成功地抵制了.Net了吗?.Net刚出来的时候,大家都觉得它太晚
了,而且,"微软能搞出什么好东西?".现在我在很多论坛上经常看到
的问题却是"我应该学.Net还是J2EE呢?" J2EE出道比谁都早,搞到
今天,在非企业级的市场上被PHP和perl挤得几乎无法生存,在企业
级被.Net瓜分市场,弄得现在要回头去抄ASP.NET的结构搞JSF.我们
这些搞J2EE的人还要把头埋在沙子里说"我们成功地抵制了.Net"?
EJB树立了自己的地位? 靠得是什么? 不是

【在 a*****a 的大作中提到】

: 说句实话感觉是你最先跳出来说EJB是个错误，是失败的设计。新的EJB还是失败。
: EJB/J2EE使许多人吃饭的工具,难怪有人不舒服.
: 说老实话我虽然不是100%依赖EJB/J2ee吃饭，但它还是我饭碗里的一个重要
: 的菜。因此我觉得你的这些论断是很Joke的。赫赫。
: 话说回来，一些Open Source的人要推自己的结构和成果，自然也站在另外
: 的一个角度，说EJB是个彻底失败的设计，就是一个例子。其实失败还是
: 成功，还得看用户的使用。如果从这个角度出发，那么EJB虽然复杂，但
: 依然是个很成功的设计，至少成功地抵制了.Net的进攻，也树立了自己的
: 地位。技术都是向前发展的。当新技术出来的时候，一味贬低老技术，
: 称之为失败，是很没有道理的。

m*t2005-04-08 07:04

20 楼

再澄清一句,我从来没说过新的EJB 3.0也是个失败,我说的是EJB 3.0相对于以前
的版本根本不是小修小补,而是机构上的大改,这就说明EJB 2.0和以前的版本存在
很大的问题.对于EJB 3.0本身会是成功还是失败,我认为现在看还太早.

【在 a*****a 的大作中提到】

: 说句实话感觉是你最先跳出来说EJB是个错误，是失败的设计。新的EJB还是失败。
: EJB/J2EE使许多人吃饭的工具,难怪有人不舒服.
: 说老实话我虽然不是100%依赖EJB/J2ee吃饭，但它还是我饭碗里的一个重要
: 的菜。因此我觉得你的这些论断是很Joke的。赫赫。
: 话说回来，一些Open Source的人要推自己的结构和成果，自然也站在另外
: 的一个角度，说EJB是个彻底失败的设计，就是一个例子。其实失败还是
: 成功，还得看用户的使用。如果从这个角度出发，那么EJB虽然复杂，但
: 依然是个很成功的设计，至少成功地抵制了.Net的进攻，也树立了自己的
: 地位。技术都是向前发展的。当新技术出来的时候，一味贬低老技术，
: 称之为失败，是很没有道理的。