The passion and enthusiasm is great but I'm certain that behind all of these cordial posts that there is self promotion (of self and/or technology) – politics in other words.

The overwhelming result of reading all of these posts was 'who cares except the people who are competing'. I've been using Java for 12 years and was an evangelist but have always found the arguments around the best way to do things trite compared to actually getting it done (with value) for your business.

For example does Spring or ejb3 make web applications as fast (and consequently as inexpensive) to develop as traditional GUI's and if not what will? Will a combination of tool sets and marketing solve this problem, and if so, why aren't you collaborating to give me that solution instead of sitting in your own camps arguing (and trying hard to hide it)?

I want just to comment this point.
Who told something like this,never tried to run the same EJB on Bea Weblogic , Glassfish , and JBoss.
Any project needed different configuration and different annotations sometimes, and i had only 1 Entity and 1 MDB… was really frustating.

You are correct. I have been using Spring framework for a while and I find it is one of the easiest frameworks to use. Also it provides every thing what EJB can provide. But, community is always comparing these two technologies and blaming each other. Please help each other and try to improve the technologies and it will be good for the developers.

Thank you for the article!!

Thanks,
Krishna

I'm one of the guys that attended the meeting and honestly I was disappointed by the quality of the presentation because I was hoping to see a more constructive comparison other than trying to bash Spring product. I share Mark's point of view and probably Reza should be more careful before making bold statements about Spring or other technology or at least try to investigate before claiming how great is one product vs. other.

Anyway, good luck promoting EJB3 and keep up with the good work Spring team!

Thanks,
Valy

Thanks in advance for your help and comments.

In all fairness – you haven't. Aside from me responding to Dario's comments there and not to the content of your presentation in the first place, you seem to have missed my main points. There's a very different spin in my perspective.

[quote comment="63854"]I will choose not to judge an entire community based on the opinions of one or two people, even if they are key leaders in that community.[/quote]

I would argue that our opinion is as fair and balanced as yours. The key difference is that we 'natively' see things the Spring Way, while you tend to see everything from an EJB3 perspective. Frankly, I don't think you're seeing what Spring is really about.

[quote comment="63854"]I am still not sure how you established why it is so difficult for Spring to support EJB 100% as well as it's own extensions. No one said you could not push out additional Spring versions on top of the specification timeline (…)[/quote]

Nobody ever said it's "so difficult"; that's a gross distortion in your perspective. It is just not generally recommendable to our users. Spring differs in the defaults and recommendations from virtually everything EJB3 defines, so this would break with much-loved key elements of the Spring Way. And the Spring Way is what matters to our community.

Anyway, the term "extensions" clearly highlights your narrow perspective again: Spring is not about extending EJB3 in the first place. Spring is about a comprehensive, self-sufficient component model in its own right, integrating with EJB3 (if desired) but not being tied to it. If we decide support standard annotations, then we do so in the context of Spring's native component model. Not the other way around.

[quote comment="63854"]Folks should be able to use Spring as a fully compatible EJB 3.x container if they so choose…[/quote]

The Pitchfork project is exactly about building such an EJB3 container on top of the Spring core framework. However, the point there was to implement an EJB3 container in the first place, to be embedded in server products. This is not the typical Spring usage scenario; to the best of our knowledge, our users still prefer to use Spring natively.

In general, if folks want to use EJB 3, then they get themselves a Java EE 5 server; they don't choose an application framework for that. In other words, application frameworks integrate with EJB3; they are not themselves EJB3 containers. This applies to e.g. Seam just as much as it does to Spring. It even applies to the emerging Web Beans!

Spring works nicely as an application framework on top of a Java EE 5 server, and will be able to do an even better job there on Java EE 6. This is exactly because Spring is designed the way it is, integrating with Java EE facilities rather than implementing them. If the Spring application framework was an EJB3 container itself, it would conflict with the built-in EJB3 container of the underlying server, while not being able to provide the added value that it does at present… So what exactly would be the point?

Juergen