My view on EJBs

Question

http://www.greengiraffesolutions.blogspot.com/

Answer 1

Elaborate reply: I agree that EJBs are unnecessarily condemned for various reasons which you have cited. They are, in fact, pretty good in a fair number of situations which require a robust and scalable architecture. However, your view on Spring equivalence -
I can't see a better alternative to J2EE/EJB. People say use Hibernate. The persistence machanism is simpler than EJBs. Fine, but what are you going to use for transactions, security, scalability and directory service (ie. JNDI)? You could cobble together something in Spring and then use "bits" of J2EE like JTA and JMS. But that sounds much messier and harder to maintain than using J2EE/EJB outright.
is very premature because you don't seem to have researched the other part. The statement is pretty biased. I do agree that I found EJBs simpler than Hibernate but that may be because my EJB book has a good explanation of all the concepts. shrug Well, I recently found a well-written book on Hibernate and the author is a regular on the forum. The book has some good reviews. Let's see if that gives me a better idea of Hibernate and how it could be an alternative to persistence (and also how simple / complex it is).
Spring as a framework has a neat (not cobbled up) and pretty flexible and it does not attempt to eliminate the place of EJBs. I use EJBs with Spring in my present project and all I could say is that Spring has a good architecture in itself. It saves me the time of writing the framework components and truly reuse other technologies (including EJBs, web services, ...).
And finally, was the intent of the article to target the millions of developers who could not handle complexity rather than the technology itself? ;)
I would partially agree that EJB has been mostly discarded because most developers like to get away from complexities and they find EJB complex. Some do find it simple. The future EJB specifications are aiming at reducing complexity and improving the efficiency [I can't comment much because I haven't been into EJB 3 specifications yet].