Max Rydahl Andersen schrieb:
I never said
EJB3 were perfect and it was not the whole point of the discussion.
The point was that you said EJB3 is not suitable for a specific case
and I said
I could solve it with EJB3 (albeit in a different way - but the problem
is solvable
without fetch groups).
I actually pin-pointed you to write it to the ejb3-spec committe!
If you think the problem was solvable without dynamic fetch-groups, why
then should I write to the ejb3 expert group?
btw. Hibernate3
can do much of this, but noone ever asked for dynamically
fetch groups probably since all known usecases too me (including yours)
can be implemented in other ways (and I would say it would be more
efficient)
Again, would you then mind to finally lift the curtain on how you
would do it exactly, please? If you don't, please understand that
I'll continue assuming that there is no such solution, whatever reasons
you might have to claim the opposite without proving it.
Ok - this is
just blatently stupid low-blows against someone who tries to discuss
different ways of solving things and actually suggest you to talk to
the
ejb3 spec-people.
I don't know much of the internals of the EJB3 expert group, but I
heard that the subject of fetch-groups had already been brought up
there. I don't know about Oracle, but my guess is that it is exactly
JBoss who had their share in turning it down, probably most of all
because Hibernate doesn't support it, and seemingly without thinking
further than that.
Sorry, I don't mean to say you personally or JBoss are sabotaging
client-side Java on purpose, but the responsible persons at JBoss
should know that this is the consequence of their behaviour.
|