From: James Britt <james_b@...>
Date: 2005-07-14T00:38:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Article: Ruby on Rails and J2EE: Is there room for both?

Mark Alexander Friedgan wrote:
> Our company made a decision to use Rails instead of J2EE. We use Rinda 
> instead of message queues and have not yet found a need for distributed 
> transactions(although that is one part that is missing) EJB's are wonderful 
> but really how are they different from models or correctly developed service 
> classes ? 

It's not so much that one can find acceptable alternatives to these 
things in Ruby, but that the J2EE spec defines many things that have no 
counterpart in Rails.  That one can roll their own code and add it to a 
Ruby app is obviously a good thing, but the article did not bother 
addressing theses things.

Instead, the author looked at Rails, then found some approximate version 
of the same features in Java, and presented the latter as being J2EE. A 
better title might have been, "Ruby on Rails and Struts: Is there room 
for both?"  But that's not as sexy.

Such a comparison is useful and may encourage people to move from Java 
to Ruby.  But people more familiar with J2EE may see this particular 
article as just more Rails hype, a biased, willfully-ignorant 
comparison, in which case Rails (and Ruby) come off looking bad.



James

-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys