Article:		POJO Application Frameworks: Spring Vs. EJB 3.0
Subject:		Fatally Flawed Article
Date:		2005-07-12 10:49:51
From:		TS133T
Response to: Fatally Flawed Article
Spring is not standard it is a integration tollkit (I dont even want to say framework because its not based on abstraction but contains implementations against abstraction such as AOP, JMX, JMS, EJB and ect) between standards.

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• Fatally Flawed Article
  2005-07-12 10:58:22  MichaelYuan [View]
  
  
  That is why Spring apps contain vendor-dependent integration code (and XML files). Why not make Spring a standard in JCP -- so that all vendors can implement portable integration "toolkits"? Java has a strong tradition to standardize interactions between "components".
  
  In fact, EJB 3 does some DI (integration) standardization already. Why not Spring?
• Fatally Flawed Article
  2005-07-12 11:13:49  TS133T [View]
  
  
  "In fact, EJB 3 does some DI (integration) standardization already. Why not Spring?"
  
  If you annotations than Spring will be able to do the same thing.
  
  "That is why Spring apps contain vendor-dependent integration code (and XML files)"
  
  XML is unavoidable if you want to avoid hardcoding (but again Spring doesnt force you to use XML for DI, XML is just one popular way of doing DI in Spring).
  
  The other alternative is to use annotations but again its kind of hardcoding since annotations are part of source code.
  
  "Why not make Spring a standard in JCP -- so that all vendors can implement portable integration "toolkits"? Java has a strong tradition to standardize interactions between "components"."
  
  Personally I don’t see enough abstraction in Spring to be worth standardizing. I believe Sun thinks the same.
• Fatally Flawed Article
  2006-06-22 06:22:24  _a [View]
  
  
  I don't understand anything in Java. I'm a Cobol programmer.