Talk:Jakarta Enterprise Beans

message: --112.135.112.37 (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

message: I think this article should be moved to Enterprise JavaBean instead of using the plural. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole technology is "Enterprise JavaBeans technology", the specification is "Enterprise JavaBeans" and the common usage is overwhelmingly "Enterprise JavaBeans" (: 2,000,000 vs : 257,000). Pimlottc 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename File linke to Enterprise JavaBean 

message: A significant population exists that is more familiar with Microsoft's offerings.  Could someone please add a paragraph showing what in the .NET Framework correponds to Enterprise Java Beans, if any, and vice versa?
: I know almost nothing about the Microsoft platform, but from what I do understand the nearest equivalent to EJB would probably be DCOM. --Marlow4 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphorical Understanding 

message: The History section contains many criticisms of EJB, but doesn't provide any sources to back these up.  Additionally, there's are a number of weasel words, e.g. "[EJBs] were adopted more and more by businesses who had become disillusioned with EJBs" and "many programmers found the APIs to be just as difficult if not more so, leading to a widespread perception that EJBs introduced complexity without delivering real benefits". Hertzsprung 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --RoyBoy 04:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of EJBs 

message: This article does not explain whether or not the EJB is related to the JavaBean specification, and if so how.  As a newcomer, this is a natural question, and it is surprising it is not addressed briefly in this page. Could someone add it please?  --91.84.95.243 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard EJB is a different concept to JavaBean.  I really want to see some explaination on this too.  Any experts?  129.65.108.187 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[JavaBean]] article ? 

message: Anyone else think that the reference to Quartz reads/looks to be a shameless advert for the scheduler in an otherwise product neutral section? Personally I think the example should be removed.
62.190.10.139 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would be justified. The importance of the example is that MDBs are specified to be used as JCA inflow endpoints, which is a very specific and abstract function that would otherwise be rather hard to explain if it was not allowed to use a simple and real-world example. Of course, I could cook up an example that carefully and artificially avoided the name Quartz, by calling it a "Hypothetical timer service called Ruby", and then copy the example and adjust it for my hypothetical Ruby Scheduler. I couldn't provide a reference then, and somebody will probably remove it all because it's unsourced, original content, etc etc. As I personally put the example there and have no direct of indirect connections with any person or entity related to any company behind Quartz, I don't see how it serves as an Advertisement. Arjant (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message Driven Bean advertising 

message: The very first sentence introduces terms like "managed" whose meaning can be hard to look up. If you look up managed for example
you end up with an article Managed code that says it's a .NET concept, so this can be confusing because we are dealing with Java here.
Feraudyh (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Container) managed means that the container manages both persistence of data and the (distributed) transactions thereof and the (proxy) instances of your beans and bean interfaces in case that you are using either JNDI for looking up (remote) interfaces or dependency injection, amongst many other things that the container does. Container managed is a term that was coined long before ...net even came into existence. And it must not be confused with managed code. 2003:4C:C002:2:80:0:1:1 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might be worthwhile to look into the feasibility of creating an article that explains "managed beans" or "container managed". It's a frequently used term in Java literature and applies to not just EJB or Java EE but to Spring and Guice technology among others as well. Arjant (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: It would be interesting to see how EJB relates to middleware, what typical middleware features it covers. Also a comparison to CORBA could be interesting. As far as I understand EJB could be used in this way. If that is wrong this probably is not interesting at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.5.2 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to middleware