Re: RAC vs. J2EE

GreyBeard wrote:

> However, as I've quoted several times, in Tate & Gehtland's "Better,
> Faster, Lighter Java" (O'Reilly - 0-596-00676-4) I particularily like
the
> following:

Interesting. Will look that one up next time on the book shop. Thanks.

> I am a Java and J2EE trainer, as well as an Oracle consultant and
trainer
> and have been griping about the increasing complexity of Java for a
while
> now. I was absolutely thrilled when I saw someone daring to say the
same
> thing in print.

About time, long overdue. The whole thing is an expensive overhead, difficult to learn, code and maintain.

Had a big bunfight at work a while ago when an idiotic "architect" insisted we use an entire J2EE Struts "framework" and websphere development for an app with 6 (six!) interactive, high functionality, highly changeable screens. I wanted to use JDev with BC4J and PL/SQL packages, in fact wrote one of the screens using these in one afternoon.

The J2EE folks took 6 months (!!!) to put out the stuff. "Modular", "scalable", and absolutely none of the user interface the users wanted...

Told them it was a white elephant, impossible to maintain. Their claim: I was "out of date" in my "technical and design approach to work" and "database people" should butt-out of "true design".

Then the customer asked for a small change for phase2. The J2EE mob decided their "highly everything" design and code couldn't be upgraded and expanded for the next phase. So they proposed a complete re-development!

The "architect" got fired and the team was disbanded. Told them it would happen, but they didn't listen...

By contrast last year we refactored, expanded and put out a complete case management system using Forms and Oracle 9ir2. Around 130 highly functional, highly interactive screens. Base on an earlier release of Forms, this time for multi-tier. Two f/t developers, one designer. 6 months later, it was in acceptance test. Of course it is "ancient technology", but why the heck can't J2EE produce the same bang-for-$ and productivity?

Something is wrong with the whole she-bang. Or it's being sold for what it never was. Received on Thu Feb 17 2005 - 21:32:12 CST