tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37157465.post1637530330330227072..comments2010-01-11T08:16:34.925-08:00Reza Rahmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15223266103098677143noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37157465.post-4355207504578806672010-01-11T08:16:34.925-08:002010-01-11T08:16:34.925-08:00Shaw,<br /><br />This is a great observation. The assumption I challenge of course, if whether EJB 3.1 Lite can be stuck with the now seriously outdated &quot;heavyweight&quot; label any more. The Java EE 6 Web Profile is certainly more lightweight than J2EE, as are implementations like Resin that have a long history of supporting lightweight, agile development.<br /><br />Hope it helps,<br />RezaReza Rahmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15223266103098677143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37157465.post-33915091731158577172009-10-05T19:43:36.173-07:002009-10-05T19:43:36.173-07:001. One fundamental assumption around the benefit of using Spring is the notion that an EJB container, which requires an application server (and JNDI for lookup&#39;s) is heavyweight. The mere absence of it, is therefore lightweight.<br /><br />2. Any non-EJB 3, non-Spring solution requires a lot of boiler plate code, and often results in non-loose coupling, and therefore is bloated. An absence of it is less bloated, well written code. <br /><br />3. A framework may use a lot of XML, but if that was Spring then no problem. Why? Because it&#39;s lightweight (no container), eliminates bloat ware.<br /><br />I ask: Spring eliminates bloat ware for sure, but it complicates matters in other ways.<br /><br />The usual Ans: Yes, but what other better way is there to manage it? Don&#39;t bring EJB 3 because we already discussed (see #1). It&#39;s heavy weight as it requires a container.<br /><br />The argument is usually circular, and you can never come out of it.shawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17088312478482258358noreply@blogger.com