[ajug-members] Opinions on a project re-write - To EJB3 or Not

[Rob Worsnop]

If it's a rewrite, using Spring is a no-brainer in my opinion.

Don't forget that you can use Spring in a full JEE container if you
want to. There's no problem with integrating the container's
transaction manager with Spring. And, of course, you can use Spring's
JmsTemplate with any JMS implementation. If you use JBoss, you can
even inject its transaction-scoped EntityManager into your Spring
beans. (I assume this is also possible with other containers.)

I'd also look into Spring's "message-driven POJOs" as an alternative to MDBs.

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Rick <rickcr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have older EJB2/JBoss3.2.6/Hibernate(2?) application that
> needs to updated.  We have the opportunity to rewrite the
> application and I'm having some trouble deciding what technology
> stack I want to go with. (GUI front end is already in Flex and
> that's staying.)
>
> The system will rely heavily on JMS (for communications with
> another server that handles a lot of workflow stuff) and will also have to
> support some external calls into the system (from within the
> company) which are currently remote EJB calls, but there isn't a
> problem changing to some other contract.
>
> I'm basically debating about an EJB3 vs a
> Spring(Hibernate/or iBATIS)/SpingJMS/webservice solution.
> I've messed around with EJB3 some and find it quite easy to use,
> but haven't used it for a production application. I won't have
> transactions that cross databases either. I haven't used
> SpringJMS so not sure how robust and configurable it is? One
> thing for sure, is this application will have to be easy to
> scale. I could also do a combination approach where I use Spring
> managed transactions in pojos but leverage the EJB3 MDB stuff.
> That sort of seems like a waste though. Coding EJB3 stateless
> session beans is so easy now, that if I'm already using their
> MDBs, I might as well go in for the whole ball of wax?
>
> Just curious on any opinions. on-list or off-list is fine. Thanks.
>
> --
> Rick
>
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members