I just love this quote from Rod Johnson: “The Entity Bean technology somehow ignored every piece of prior art, with the result that you had two generations of completely failed technology … The cause of object-relational mapping probably lost at least six years because of that, and [it caused] billions of dollars of wasted development.” I recall quiet distinctly the first time I looked at the EJB 1.0 specification and played with an implementation. I remember taking a sharp dislike to the technology and thinking that I would never use it. And I was right, I’ve never once used any EJBs (neither entity nor session beans) in any product or project I’ve worked on. There was always a more suitable and easier to use alternative.
7 Responses to “Two generations of completely failed technology”
Recent Posts
Blogroll
Top Posts
- From GoDaddy to Google Apps in 20 minutes
- Automated Eclipse GUI testing the quick and simple way
- Groovy+Grails slaughters Ruby+Rails in performance stakes
- Hilarious double helping of Microhoo! Frappe
- m2eclipse looks good
- Eclipse Runtime and Spring
- Not convinced about Guice, Spring scores again with JavaConfig
- OSGi tutorial at ApacheCon Dublin
- Maven 2
- Maven2, Java5 et al.
Archives
- May 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- January 2006
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- June 2005
- October 2004
- June 2004
- April 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
Maybe some arguments? Or not?
Same Rod Johnson was completely ignoring rich client applications…
IBM is responsible for most of the crappiest code in Java - Date, Calendar and EJB. I did a project on EJB 1.0 and it worked but I had to create BMP framework that tied into a home-grown ORM. Yuck - but it was 1999…
EJB 1.0 did make three-tier development easier that it had been before but yeah, IBM created a spec without looking at anything non-IBM.
I realized recently that some technologies were made to sell servers, and other technologies were made to help developers be productive.
Many Java products were designed to sell servers; whereas Ruby and Spring were designed to make developers productive.
“The cause of object-relational mapping probably lost at least six years because of that”
No, ORM is the cause. It’s a stupid idea to try to map a beautiful relational model to an object model.
It’s a stupid idea to try to map a beautiful object model to a relational model
vincent, we agree on the mapping part?!