# Distributed Object Container **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [24 August 2002 06:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374 "2002-08-24T06:00:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Junderdown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Junderdown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Junderdown)\ **Post date:** [24 August 2002 06:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/1 "2002-08-24T06:00:02Z")
Is anyone out there in the Ruby community working on an object container similar to those in J2EE app servers? I’m aware of dRuby, but according to my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) an object container does a lot more than just enable remote access to objects, it also provides such things as caching of recently fetched objects, database connection pooling, and transactional support. It seems to me that this would be a killer app for Ruby that would make it stand head and shoulders above Python and Perl. It would also eliminate any last thoughts in my mind about using Java for web apps. ---
**Author:** ![Philipp\_Meier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Philipp\_Meier](https://rubytalk.org/u/Philipp_Meier)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 11:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/2 "2002-08-26T11:36:09Z")
After building a proof of concept DB-Mixin for internal use I got mgalomaniac and thought of the same 😉 I’d like to start with a real ObjectRationalBridge cause i’m bound to a relational db environment at work. Using dRuby as remote access seems fine. Outstanding issues are: a command framework (I like the design of webwork and I am implementing a ruby clone, right now), access control (steel design from PAM?) and, ehm, transaction control. Any volunteers? _g_ -billy. > **···** > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 03:00:02PM +0900, Jason Underdown wrote: > > > Is anyone out there in the Ruby community working on an object > > container similar to those in J2EE app servers? I’m aware of dRuby, > > but according to my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) an > > object container does a lot more than just enable remote access to > > objects, it also provides such things as caching of recently fetched > > objects, database connection pooling, and transactional support. It > > seems to me that this would be a killer app for Ruby that would make > > it stand head and shoulders above Python and Perl. It would also > > eliminate any last thoughts in my mind about using Java for web apps. > > – > Meisterbohne Söflinger Straße 100 Tel: +49-731-399 499-0 > eLösungen 89077 Ulm Fax: +49-731-399 499-9 ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 13:21 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/3 "2002-08-26T13:21:03Z")
Good question. Here’s my take. J2EE - more specifically, EJB - enables those nice things like pooling, transactions, caching, security, persistance (it may provide more or less than this ;). You’re asking if we can make Ruby do the same, somehow. The problem is, Ruby is analogous to _Java_ (a computer programming language), not _EJB_, which is essentially a _standard_ which is more to do with services that _application servers_ provide rather than a programming language. The only reason it has come about is because Sun has sat down with IBM, Oracle, etc., and nutted out a standard so that EJBs can be deployed on all these different application servers. This is the benefit of Sun controlling Java - they have the muscle and the organisation to create these agreements at a high corporate level. This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good language. And it can’t really be done in Ruby. My hope is than within two years Ruby code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the J2EE platform can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, … Gavin > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: “Jason Underdown” [junderdown@msn.com](mailto:junderdown@msn.com) > > > Is anyone out there in the Ruby community working on an object > > container similar to those in J2EE app servers? I’m aware of dRuby, > > but according to my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) an > > object container does a lot more than just enable remote access to > > objects, it also provides such things as caching of recently fetched > > objects, database connection pooling, and transactional support. It > > seems to me that this would be a killer app for Ruby that would make > > it stand head and shoulders above Python and Perl. It would also > > eliminate any last thoughts in my mind about using Java for web apps. ---
**Author:** ![Anders\_Bengtsson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Anders\_Bengtsson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Anders_Bengtsson)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 13:55 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/4 "2002-08-26T13:55:48Z")
Gavin Sinclair wrote: > This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good > language. > > And it can’t really be done in Ruby. My hope is than within two years Ruby > code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the J2EE platform > can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, … Compiled Ruby would remove one major benefit with Ruby, its dynamic nature. However, interpreted Ruby within a JVM is already a reality, although still in beta, see [http://jruby.sourceforge.net/](http://jruby.sourceforge.net/). We hope to have some kind of Java bytecode generation in the future. /Anders > **···** > > – > > A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se > Stockholm, Sweden | > > * * * > > Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail > Busenkelt! ---
**Author:** ![James6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c89c15/32.png) [@James6](https://rubytalk.org/u/James6)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 15:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/5 "2002-08-26T15:37:05Z")
> J2EE - more specifically, EJB - enables those nice things like pooling, > transactions, caching, security, persistance (it may provide more > or less than > this ;). You’re asking if we can make Ruby do the same, somehow. > > The problem is, Ruby is analogous to _Java_ (a computer > programming language), > not _EJB_, which is essentially a _standard_ which is more to do > with services > that _application servers_ provide rather than a programming > language. Well, a standard in the sense that the single proprietary owner dictates the rules. But how can you have Enterprise _Java™_ Beans without, well, _Java™_? > The > only reason it has come about is because Sun has sat down with > IBM, Oracle, > etc., and nutted out a standard so that EJBs can be deployed on all these > different application servers. This is the benefit of Sun > controlling Java - > they have the muscle and the organisation to create these > agreements at a high > corporate level. Was it agreement, or was it simply Sun declaring what the New Hot Java™ Technology would be, and others compelled to follow or drop out of the Java™ game? There are a lot of smart people at Sun, but, ultimately, decisions about Java™ are based on what’s the best marketing strategy for Sun, not what’s the best computer science. > This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good > language. > > And it can’t really be done in Ruby. My hope is than within two > years Ruby > code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the > J2EE platform > can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, … What a nightmare. One reason I quit may previous job was because I was compelled to work with J2EE™, on iPlanet™. There are some interesting things about J2EE™, but none of them have to do with, or require, Java™. There is no need to seek J2EE™ compatibility other than to convince clueless managers to go ahead with some technology because it adheres to familiar buzzwords. I would hate to see Ruby get caught up in trying to play Sun’s game. If it came to that, I’d much rather see effort put into getting Ruby compiled to CLR byte-code and [Ruby.net](http://Ruby.net); Microsoft’s got a much slicker IDE. 🙂 James > **···** > > > Gavin ---
**Author:** ![Junderdown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Junderdown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Junderdown)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 21:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/6 "2002-08-26T21:40:28Z")
“Gavin Sinclair” [gsinclair@soyabean.com.au](mailto:gsinclair@soyabean.com.au) wrote in message news:[000201c24d03$2caa8ad0$0c6332d2@nosedog](mailto:000201c24d03$2caa8ad0$0c6332d2@nosedog)… > Good question. Here’s my take. > > J2EE - more specifically, EJB - enables those nice things like pooling, > transactions, caching, security, persistance (it may provide more or less than > this ;). You’re asking if we can make Ruby do the same, somehow. > > The problem is, Ruby is analogous to _Java_ (a computer programming language), > not _EJB_, which is essentially a _standard_ which is more to do with services > that _application servers_ provide rather than a programming language. The > only reason it has come about is because Sun has sat down with IBM, Oracle, > etc., and nutted out a standard so that EJBs can be deployed on all these > different application servers. This is the benefit of Sun controlling Java - > they have the muscle and the organisation to create these agreements at a high > corporate level. Yes, you are right, J2EE is just a standard implemented by several app server vendors. But why couldn’t we adapt the J2EE standard so that something like it could be implemented in Ruby? Corporate backing would be helpful, but I don’t see it as necessary. > This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good > language. I agree. > And it can’t really be done in Ruby. My hope is than within two years Ruby > code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the J2EE platform > can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, … > > Gavin Why can’t it be done in Ruby??? The main obstacle as I see it is coming up with a workable ‘component’ model. Obviously because Ruby is an interpreted language, these would not be bytecode components let alone binary components, but I think the word component is still applicable here. ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 15:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/7 "2002-08-26T15:07:26Z")
> Gavin Sinclair wrote: > > > This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good > > language. > > > > And it can’t really be done in Ruby. My hope is than within two years Ruby > > code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the J2EE > > platform > > can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, … > > Compiled Ruby would remove one major benefit with Ruby, its dynamic > nature. However, interpreted Ruby within a JVM is already a reality, > although still in beta, see [http://jruby.sourceforge.net/](http://jruby.sourceforge.net/). > We hope to have some kind of Java bytecode generation in the future. I hope to try JRuby in the not-too-distant-future. Would Java bytecode generation preclude the dynamic nature? > ## /Anders Gavin > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: “Anders Bengtsson” [ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se](mailto:ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se) ---
**Author:** ![James6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c89c15/32.png) [@James6](https://rubytalk.org/u/James6)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 22:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/8 "2002-08-26T22:29:14Z")
> Yes, you are right, J2EE is just a standard implemented by several app > server vendors. No, J2EE™ is something Sun owns, controls, drives, and dictates. It is not a standard in any meaningful use of the word. We might just as well talk about the Visual Basic “standard”. > But why couldn’t we adapt the J2EE standard so that something like it > could be implemented in Ruby? Because getting caught up in Sun’s game would be self-defeating. James ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 22:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/9 "2002-08-26T22:57:25Z")
> > J2EE - more specifically, EJB - enables those nice things like pooling, > > transactions, caching, security, persistance (it may provide more > > or less than > > this ;). You’re asking if we can make Ruby do the same, somehow. > > > > The problem is, Ruby is analogous to _Java_ (a computer > > programming language), > > not _EJB_, which is essentially a _standard_ which is more to do > > with services > > that _application servers_ provide rather than a programming > > language. > > Well, a standard in the sense that the single proprietary owner dictates the > rules. > But how can you have Enterprise _Java™_ Beans without, well, _Java™_? Two sides: 1. You can’t. They are defined in such a way that they use Java. 2. EJBs is a “way of doing things” (relating to disributed objects) that is not hardcoded in any language. It’s a standard in the sense that together with prospective implementors and prospective users, they have defined a mechanism, EJBs, and a set of services (transactions, persistence, …) that the app server implementors must provide so the users can: - benefit from this technology - port their distributed apps to other (compliant) platforms So Sun is not dictating things. J2EE is IMO too verbose and a bit hacky, but at least it was designed, with consultation, to give people what they want. > > The > > only reason it has come about is because Sun has sat down with > > IBM, Oracle, > > etc., and nutted out a standard so that EJBs can be deployed on all these > > different application servers. This is the benefit of Sun > > controlling Java - > > they have the muscle and the organisation to create these > > agreements at a high > > corporate level. > > Was it agreement, or was it simply Sun declaring what the New Hot Java™ > Technology would be, and others compelled to follow or drop out of the > Java™ game? It was agreement. You probably don’t repect the people/companies that were part of the agreement, but it was a collaborative effort. It’s not in Sun’s interest to be so dictatorial, for the very reason that the services J2EE provides is _not_ in the realm of a programming _language_. If they didn’t “co-operate” to some degree, the vendors, or somebody else, would fill the void with another language. > There are a lot of smart people at Sun, but, ultimately, decisions about > Java™ are based on what’s the best marketing strategy for Sun, not what’s > the best computer science. Of course. What’s your point? Of course Sun is trying to paint themselves onto the scene. Their aim is not to create good computer science, but to make money. We can expect, however, that the two will intersect somewhere. Their aim is for people to be able to create distributes systems and integrate with application severs in a standard way. What on earth is wrong with that? > > This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good > > language. > > > > And it can’t really be done in Ruby. My hope is than within two > > years Ruby > > code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the > > J2EE platform > > can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, … > > What a nightmare. One reason I quit may previous job was because I was > compelled to work with J2EE™, on iPlanet™. There are some interesting > things about J2EE™, but none of them have to do with, or require, > Java™. There is no need to seek J2EE™ compatibility other than to > convince clueless managers to go ahead with some technology because it > adheres to familiar buzzwords. If you took over a large project that heavily used EJB, J2EE, app servers, and the whole shebang, how would you reimplement it? Extra credit will be given to solutions that are “pure computer science” and do not contain “™” anywhere. Nor should there be any buzzwords. > I would hate to see Ruby get caught up in trying to play Sun’s game. If it > came to that, I’d much rather see effort put into getting Ruby compiled to > CLR byte-code and [Ruby.net](http://Ruby.net); Microsoft’s got a much slicker IDE. 🙂 > > James Ruby can’t play Sun’s game, unless a Sun-like company/consortium pushed Ruby as the language to use to tie together “all these wonderful technologies”. And I wouldn’t want to see Ruby playing that game, either. Gavin > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " JamesBritt" [james@jamesbritt.com](mailto:james@jamesbritt.com) ---
**Author:** ![Anders\_Bengtsson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Anders\_Bengtsson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Anders_Bengtsson)\ **Post date:** [26 August 2002 16:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/10 "2002-08-26T16:11:27Z")
Gavin Sinclair wrote: > From: “Anders Bengtsson” [ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se](mailto:ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se) > > > Compiled Ruby would remove one major benefit with Ruby, its dynamic > > nature. However, interpreted Ruby within a JVM is already a reality, > > although still in beta, see [http://jruby.sourceforge.net/](http://jruby.sourceforge.net/). > > We hope to have some kind of Java bytecode generation in the future. > > I hope to try JRuby in the not-too-distant-future. > > Would Java bytecode generation preclude the dynamic nature? Not necessarily. Ideally we can create both something for just-in-time compilation as well as something that can emit Java class files. We’ll see what happens. 🙂 /Anders > **···** > > – > > A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se > Stockholm, Sweden | > > * * * > > Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002 > Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare… ---
**Author:** ![James6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c89c15/32.png) [@James6](https://rubytalk.org/u/James6)\ **Post date:** [27 August 2002 00:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/11 "2002-08-27T00:06:31Z")
> > But how can you have Enterprise _Java™_ Beans without, well, > > _Java™_? > > Two sides: > > 1. You can’t. They are defined in such a way that they use Java. > 2. EJBs is a “way of doing things” (relating to disributed > objects) that is not > hardcoded in any language. That “way of doing things” part is not unique to EJBs. EJBs are one implementation of some fundamental ideas about distributed computing. If Sun has devised a particularly clever take on these ideas, then it’s worth looking at and adopting for Ruby. But not to provide any sort of vendor compliance. > It’s a standard in the sense that together with prospective > implementors and > prospective users, they have defined a mechanism, EJBs, and a set > of services > (transactions, persistence, …) that the app server implementors > must provide > so the users can: > > - benefit from this technology > - port their distributed apps to other (compliant) platforms > > So Sun is not dictating things. J2EE is IMO too verbose and a > bit hacky, but > at least it was designed, with consultation, to give people what > they want. It may be what (some) people want, and it may have come about because Sun opted to listen to other vendors, but the bottom line is that it is what Sun decides it is. > > There are a lot of smart people at Sun, but, ultimately, decisions about > > Java™ are based on what’s the best marketing strategy for > > Sun, not what’s > > the best computer science. > > Of course. What’s your point? Of course Sun is trying to paint > themselves > onto the scene. Their aim is not to create good computer > science, but to make > money. We can expect, however, that the two will intersect somewhere. My point is that J2EE is a poor target to chase. It is changing, and will always change. The changes will be based on Sun’s self-interest, which may involve some collaboration, but will not likely pay much heed to non-corporate interests. > Their aim is for people to be able to create distributes systems > and integrate > with application severs in a standard way. What on earth is > wrong with that? Nothing. But their aim is to sell hardware and operating systems. If they can create an interesting and valuable language/app server in the process, then the stockholders will be happy, or at least not care. I’m unclear how it is in Ruby’s interest to help prop up Sun’s API. I tend to think it would doom Ruby to being perceived as a niche language, a mere scripting tool. > If you took over a large project that heavily used EJB, J2EE, app > servers, and > the whole shebang, how would you reimplement it? Extra credit > will be given to > solutions that are “pure computer science” and do not contain > “™” anywhere. > Nor should there be any buzzwords. Beats me. Why re-do it? Is it costing too much money to maintain? Would it save money in the long run to rewrite it in Smalltalk or Lisp or C or whatever? Can the company afford the initial cost to change? What’s the business case? Does the company have a no buzzwords, no ™ policy? I expect that, over time, Ruby will develop a set of libraries for building app servers (R2EE!)and writing complex, large-scale distributed applications. I would like to think that, as that happens, people will prefer to build new systems using Ruby rather than Java (or whatever). People will choose Ruby because they prefer the Ruby Way. I don’t see it happening, though, if time is spent getting Ruby to play nice with some alien API. If we want to pick goals, don’t aim for J2EE. Aim past it. James ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Campbell1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Michael\_Campbell1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_Campbell1)\ **Post date:** [27 August 2002 14:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/12 "2002-08-27T14:06:16Z")
> > Yes, you are right, J2EE is just a standard implemented by > > several app > > server vendors. > > No, J2EE™ is something Sun owns, controls, drives, and dictates. > It is > not a standard in any meaningful use of the word. We might just as > well > talk about the Visual Basic “standard”. > > > But why couldn’t we adapt the J2EE standard so that something > > like it > > could be implemented in Ruby? > > Because getting caught up in Sun’s game would be self-defeating. > > James While blind obedience to J2EE is probably not a good idea, abject refusal to consider it is arguably no better. > **···** > > ## ===== > > Use your computer to help find a cure for cancer: [Webspace nicht erreichbar](http://members.ud.com/projects/cancer/) > > Yahoo IM: michael\_s\_campbell > > * * * > > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes > > > **[Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News](https://finance.yahoo.com/)** > > > > At Yahoo Finance, you get free stock quotes, up-to-date news, portfolio management resources, international market data, social interaction and mortgage rates that help you manage your financial life. ---
**Author:** ![James6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c89c15/32.png) [@James6](https://rubytalk.org/u/James6)\ **Post date:** [27 August 2002 15:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/13 "2002-08-27T15:23:35Z")
> While blind obedience to J2EE is probably not a good idea, abject > refusal to consider it is arguably no better. Absolutely. Anyone interested in the idea should spend time working with J2EE and consider the merits. I have, and think it a poor idea. YMMV, though, and I’d like to hear what others think Ruby could gain borrowing from app server frameworks. For example, what (if anything) did J2EE get right? What other frameworks are worth examining? James ---
**Author:** ![Junderdown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Junderdown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Junderdown)\ **Post date:** [28 August 2002 03:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/14 "2002-08-28T03:23:10Z")
> I expect that, over time, Ruby will develop a set of libraries for building > app servers (R2EE!)and writing complex, large-scale distributed > applications. I would like to think that, as that happens, people will > prefer to build new systems using Ruby rather than Java (or whatever). > People will choose Ruby because they prefer the Ruby Way. I don’t see it > happening, though, if time is spent getting Ruby to play nice with some > alien API. > > If we want to pick goals, don’t aim for J2EE. Aim past it. > > James Exactly! Nowhere in my initial post did I advocate implementing J2EE in Ruby. Nor do I care if Ruby plays nicely with Java’s APIs, what I do care about is having a good platform for developing web applications. Since database interaction is so crucial in all but the most trivial of web applications, it makes sense to create a good abstraction framework for your data. I think there are some good ideas that could be borrowed and improved upon from the J2EE spec. I also think the dynamic nature of Ruby is an even better fit for creating an app server than Java. Instead of bickering over J2EE, let’s exchange ideas on how we might build such a thing. My first course of attack is to read through Matsuo Hisanori’s Petit+Server and check out his ideas. Jason ---
**Author:** ![Anders\_Bengtsson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Anders\_Bengtsson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Anders_Bengtsson)\ **Post date:** [27 August 2002 19:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/15 "2002-08-27T19:41:26Z")
JamesBritt wrote: > For example, what (if anything) did J2EE get right? What other frameworks > are worth examining? The automatic transactions during calls to components are really nice. If the call returns, the transaction is committed. If it fails with an exception, it is rolled back. This removes the need to fumble with begin()/commit() in the application code. Also some of the distributed nature of J2EE is neat, even though I believe the need for clustering at the app-server tier is exaggerated. /Anders > **···** > > – > > A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se > Stockholm, Sweden | > > * * * > > Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail > Busenkelt! ---
**Author:** ![Holden\_Glova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/57b2e6/32.png) [@Holden\_Glova](https://rubytalk.org/u/Holden_Glova)\ **Post date:** [28 August 2002 07:35 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/16 "2002-08-28T07:35:04Z")
I sadly use J2EE every day for work and find it lots of work to get it to do things. Perhaps my mind is too small for J2EE. However, I personally really like the idea of something like JDO. I think you can achieve something like JDO (effectively OR mapping) and have some nice tools to help manage your persistence mappings without the need for an app server though. I am currently experimenting with something along these lines, and having a blast doing it too 🙂 * * * Signed, Holden Glova > **···** > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:23, JamesBritt wrote: > > > > While blind obedience to J2EE is probably not a good idea, abject > > > refusal to consider it is arguably no better. > > > > Absolutely. Anyone interested in the idea should spend time working with > > J2EE and consider the merits. I have, and think it a poor idea. YMMV, > > though, and I’d like to hear what others think Ruby could gain borrowing > > from app server frameworks. > > > > For example, what (if anything) did J2EE get right? What other frameworks > > are worth examining? > > > > James ---
**Author:** ![Philipp\_Meier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Philipp\_Meier](https://rubytalk.org/u/Philipp_Meier)\ **Post date:** [28 August 2002 08:04 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/17 "2002-08-28T08:04:59Z")
I recently stumbled over OJB ([http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/](http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/)) which is a object relational bridge including a ODMG 3.0 complient API. Although I didn’t tried it yet I think something like that is missing for ruby. Of course, the API must be ruby like. The concept of blocks in ruby would be great for transaction demarkation (sic?), e.g. I imagine writing db access or generally access to persistent object like this: def add\_item\_to\_cart(item\_ids) transaction.serializable do @warehouse.queryByValue(:id, item\_ids) do |item| item.instock -= 1 @cart[@item] += 1 end end end -billy. > **···** > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:23:10PM +0900, Jason Underdown wrote: > > > > If we want to pick goals, don’t aim for J2EE. Aim past it. > > > > Since database interaction is so crucial in all but the most trivial > > of web applications, it makes sense to create a good abstraction > > framework for your data. I think there are some good ideas that could > > be borrowed and improved upon from the J2EE spec. I also think the > > dynamic nature of Ruby is an even better fit for creating an app > > server than Java. > > – > Meisterbohne Söflinger Straße 100 Tel: +49-731-399 499-0 > eLösungen 89077 Ulm Fax: +49-731-399 499-9 ---
**Author:** ![Nat\_Pryce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b38774/32.png) [@Nat\_Pryce](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nat_Pryce)\ **Post date:** [28 August 2002 09:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/18 "2002-08-28T09:47:51Z")
For the web GUI side of things, you might want to look at WEBrick and Amrita (both in the RAA). WEBrick is a Ruby framework for building servers, and provides Ruby servlets for HTTP. Amrita is an XML and HTML template system that provides a clean separation between code/data and presentation. Cheers, Nat. > **···** > > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 04:23, Jason Underdown wrote: > > > Instead of bickering over J2EE, let’s exchange ideas on how we might > > build such a thing. My first course of attack is to read through > > Matsuo Hisanori’s Petit+Server and check out his ideas. > > – > Dr. Nathaniel Pryce, Technical Director, B13media Ltd. > Studio 3a, 22-24 Highbury Grove, London N5 2EA, UK > [http://www.b13media.com](http://www.b13media.com) ---
**Author:** ![Philipp\_Meier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Philipp\_Meier](https://rubytalk.org/u/Philipp_Meier)\ **Post date:** [27 August 2002 20:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/19 "2002-08-27T20:00:36Z")
And J2EE prodives transactions outside a database context. This is why you can e.g. do a “add-to-cart-and-reduce-in-stock” operation can be made safe even if the cart is held in memory. -billy. > **···** > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:41:26AM +0900, Anders Bengtsson wrote: > > > JamesBritt wrote: > > > > > For example, what (if anything) did J2EE get right? What other frameworks > > > are worth examining? > > > > The automatic transactions during calls to components are really nice. > > If the call returns, the transaction is committed. If it fails with an > > exception, it is rolled back. > > This removes the need to fumble with begin()/commit() in the application > > code. > > – > Meisterbohne Söflinger Straße 100 Tel: +49-731-399 499-0 > eLösungen 89077 Ulm Fax: +49-731-399 499-9 ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Sawyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Tom\_Sawyer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tom_Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [28 August 2002 08:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374/20 "2002-08-28T08:41:58Z")
while your example is bit more then i have yet provided, if your are interested in being able to move you objects in and out of a database with minimal fuss, i have created DBize (soon to be released as well) it is primarily a mixin module that makes an object instantly “relationable”. it also provides for subrecords (i.e. many-to-one table relationships). ~transami > **···** > > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 02:04, Philipp Meier wrote: > > > I recently stumbled over OJB ([http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/](http://jakarta.apache.org/ojb/)) which is a > > object relational bridge including a ODMG 3.0 complient API. Although I > > didn’t tried it yet I think something like that is missing for ruby. Of > > course, the API must be ruby like. The concept of blocks in ruby would > > be great for transaction demarkation (sic?), e.g. I imagine writing db > > access or generally access to persistent object like this: > > > > def add\_item\_to\_cart(item\_ids) > > transaction.serializable do > > @warehouse.queryByValue(:id, item\_ids) do |item| > > item.instock -= 1 > > @cart[@item] += 1 > > end > > end > > end [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/distributed-object-container/1374.md?page=2)