Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Architecture for XP and scalable web sites

Expand Messages
  • Keith Richardson
    We are developing a Web application framework for a specialized vertical market that will be deployed in our client s environments. The solution must scale to
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      We are developing a Web application framework for a specialized
      vertical market that will be deployed in our client's environments.
      The solution must scale to fit a wide range of clients. We can not
      accurately predict the way future clients will use the solution
      (think "shrink wrapped software"). The most important customers are
      the biggest ones and we can not afford to find that the solution does
      not scale to meet the requirements when we get interest from a new
      major client. i.e. We will get a sudden major jump in performance
      requirements is a new customer comes along who pushes the limits of
      what we are doing.

      For these reasons I consider scalability to be a fundamental
      requirement. We are not in a position to develop to meet just the
      performance needs in front of us right now so I beleive we must
      select technologies to give us very flexible deployment. Before
      considering XP I had selected J2EE/Weblogic as a good solution. Other
      related complanies in our field are using the same environment which
      is a double plus - the technology is proven and we have the
      opportunity to share code in the future. (i.e. they could become
      customers by deploying components of our software.)

      Automated persistence is a plus because we have no way of predicting
      what state the users will be in when the system gets an unexpected
      burst of heavy use. Without automated persistence, we would have to
      do all the coding to make decisions on which session components get
      swapped out when things get busy. It is easy building a Web site but
      not easy building one to handle bursts of use that are orders of
      magnitude higher than average. Everything else being equal, I would
      prefer the deployment architecture to take care of this. This again
      leads to the J2EE/Weblogic option.

      Now I am trying to decide how XP fits in this environment of whether
      an alternative should be considered to better fit XP. I also came to
      your conclusion that XP should lead to simple solutions. There seems
      no reason why J2EE can't be kept simple. Or is there?

      Keith Richardson

      --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, Paul Hodgetts <prh@z...> wrote:
      > Keith Richardson wrote:
      >
      > > A highly scalable web site
      >
      > Would you define what you mean by highly scalable? How often do
      > you need to adjust the "scale" that the site must support? What
      > are the increments of scale (how many scale targets)?
      >
      > My experience is that a site typically only goes through a few
      > scale adjustments in its life cycle. It may start out with an
      > initial deployment that supports a few thousand users, then as
      > success warrants it gets bumped up to support some large target
      > that marketing sets and probably never gets reached. If you're
      > really successful, you may bump it once more to support a huge
      > amount of users. The need to increase the scale is usually
      > known before the system is maxed out, if we're paying attention
      > to the usage stats and trends and doing some load testing.
      >
      > My point is that the ability to scale is important, but that
      > the scale adjustments don't happen suddenly or very often. So
      > if we're carrying along a lot of baggage to allow quick and
      > frequent scale adjustments, it may not be worth the continuous
      > cost of that baggage for the few times we bump the scale.
      >
      > > must be able to automate persistance of session and environment
      > > data,
      >
      > How much automation do you want?
      >
      > There's that cost thing again. There's often more complexity
      > with the "automated" persistent mechanisms, and I think many of
      > them have additional build and deploy cycles that can limit our
      > ability to rapidly and continuously integrate.
      >
      > > allow deployment to be easily adjusted and many other features
      > > that EJBs (and more completely J2EE) provides.
      >
      > Similar to scaling, deployment adjustments usually won't happen
      > all that often. In most sites, the deployment needs aren't all
      > that complex and most everything gets deployed as just one or
      > maybe a few sets of components. It's only when we get to much
      > larger sites with a wider range of deployed components that the
      > deployments get complicated. When the site's in development,
      > there's probably more thrashing with moving things around. This
      > stabilizes quite a bit as time goes on. Again, is it worth a lot
      > of day-to-day baggage for the few times that components get moved
      > around in a deployment?
      >
      > > Are there other environments that have proven to be better for
      > > developing highly scalable solutions with XP or should I
      > > interpret these messages as saying that XP is not applicable for
      > > these needs? Any XP success stories in this area to be shared?
      >
      > I don't think any of the distributed environments (J2EE, MTS,
      > CORBA) are incompatible with XP per se. XP would ask us to
      > implement the simplest solution to meet the current requirements,
      > and to evolve that solution as the requirements change. I'm not
      > sure incrementally working from the initial requirements to an
      > eventual solution would necessarily lead us to choose these
      > technologies, or if we'd end up with something else entirely.
      >
      > So far our team is learning that it's best to use good design
      > principles that reduce the coupling and allow the specific
      > implementations of the various technologies to be changed without
      > thrashing the whole system. Then you've got flexibility and you
      > don't need to commit the project to a specific technology early.
      >
      > Most of these technologies have a lot of overhead in terms of
      > building, deploying, and starting/stopping the environments. This
      > cuts into the speed at which we can integrate new code. IMHO,
      > it's extremely important to be able to test the core business
      > classes outside the environment, and only pull the environment in
      > when needed for more comprehensive testing. Good decoupled
      > designs that are kept that way through continuous refactoring help.
      >
      > We made the mistake of coupling our design too closely to the
      > technologies and now we have to fix that. We also relied a lot
      > on EJB entity beans, and they have not lived up to our needs
      > (performance problems, added complexity, inflexibility of the
      > persistent object model). Our primary symptoms are that we
      > can't implement adequate unit testing, and our code/build/test
      > cycles are too long for continuous integration.
      >
      > I'm starting to be convinced that using XP principles from the
      > start on a web site development project would probably lead to
      > a surprisingly simple solution. Maybe just some front end
      > servlets or JSPs, perhaps using XML and XSLT, accessing the
      > persistent data via a simple mapping layer. If I had a more
      > open mind, maybe I'd end up with a non-Java based solution. ;-)
      >
      > I see no reason a simple solution like this can't be scalable,
      > deployable, and all the other -ilities you want from a site.
      > It doesn't sound as cool as a grand J2EE implementation, but it
      > might get a whole lot of business value implemented a whole lot
      > faster.
      >
      > -Paul Hodgetts
    • Keith Richardson
      ... application ... by environment ... no ... solution ... traffic. ... features ... How would you have handled the user story: Must be able to scale
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Chad Fowler"
        <chadfowler@y...> wrote:
        > I think the point of a lot of these messages is that EJB is not, at
        > least at the beginning of a project, (in most cases) the simplest
        > thing that could possibly work. A well factored servlet
        application
        > provides session persistence (not sure what you mean
        by "environment"
        > in this context) and (being well factored) would also give
        > flexibility for deployment options (things are logically decoupled,
        > so they can be physically separated down the road).
        >
        > In the past, our developers were assuming that scalable-web-
        > application == J2EE-all-the-way and just going with EJB from the
        > start. This instroduced complexity in the code, the
        > development/build process, and the application server deployment.
        > This complexity invariably lead to various problems (more points of
        > potential failure).
        >
        > The approach we've taken semi-recently with our developers is to
        > say, "You are free to use EJB (and the rest of the J2EE baggage) if
        > you can explain why you need it." What we've found so far is that
        no
        > one has ever needed it, and we haven't had any related problems.
        > (And, our applications are *so* much easier to deploy and maintain
        > now!) In the mean time, we've been trying to keep things well
        > factored, so they could be easily moved to the more complex
        solution
        > should we ever hit the scalability barriers of this approach. My
        > guess is that we won't ever get there.
        >
        > Of course, we're no amazon.com, but we get some pretty heavy
        traffic.
        >
        > Just as an addendum, here's my XP zealot answer:
        > "must be able to automate persistance of session and environment
        > data, allow deployment to be easily adjusted and many other
        features
        > that EJBs (and more completely J2EE) provides" wasn't in my user
        > stories. :)
        >
        > Chad

        How would you have handled the user story: "Must be able to scale
        quickly to unpredictable levels when a new client wants to deploy in
        a high load environment"? Maybe there is a good reason by this is a
        bad user story but I am having a hard time not having this need lead
        to a technology selection.
        Keith Richardson
      • Ron Jeffries
        ... Well, this is a copout, but that story can t be estimated (at least not by me). I d have to break it down into stories like must be able to run 100 hits
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:27 PM 1/1/2001 +0000, it seemed like Keith Richardson wrote:
          >How would you have handled the user story: "Must be able to scale
          >quickly to unpredictable levels when a new client wants to deploy in
          >a high load environment"? Maybe there is a good reason by this is a
          >bad user story but I am having a hard time not having this need lead
          >to a technology selection.

          Well, this is a copout, but that story can't be estimated (at least not by
          me). I'd have to break it down into stories like "must be able to run 100
          hits per second on a Pentium IV" or something.

          Then I'd have to do some experiments. This process might look almost
          exactly like technology selection.

          Ronald E Jeffries
          http://www.XProgramming.com
          http://www.objectmentor.com
        • Chad Fowler
          ... at ... in ... lead ... Perhaps, your project doesn t fall into the in most cases category. If it were me, I would choose the simplest thing that I
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Keith Richardson"
            <keith@s...> wrote:
            > --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Chad Fowler"
            > <chadfowler@y...> wrote:
            > > I think the point of a lot of these messages is that EJB is not,
            at
            > > least at the beginning of a project, (in most cases) the simplest
            > > thing that could possibly work.

            > How would you have handled the user story: "Must be able to scale
            > quickly to unpredictable levels when a new client wants to deploy
            in
            > a high load environment"? Maybe there is a good reason by this is a
            > bad user story but I am having a hard time not having this need
            lead
            > to a technology selection.

            Perhaps, your project doesn't fall into the "in most cases"
            category. If it were me, I would choose the simplest thing that I
            *believe* could possibly work and follow up with a performance spike
            using load testing software. Of course, as Ron mentioned in a
            previous response, words like "unpredictable" don't lend themselves
            to estimation. I would first try to get a solid idea of
            what "unpredictable" might mean.
          • Keith Richardson
            ... in ... lead ... not by ... run 100 ... almost ... I think I am faced with having to take a copout of some form. We will be creating solutions that are
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, Ron Jeffries
              <ronjeffries@a...> wrote:
              > At 11:27 PM 1/1/2001 +0000, it seemed like Keith Richardson wrote:
              > >How would you have handled the user story: "Must be able to scale
              > >quickly to unpredictable levels when a new client wants to deploy
              in
              > >a high load environment"? Maybe there is a good reason by this is a
              > >bad user story but I am having a hard time not having this need
              lead
              > >to a technology selection.
              >
              > Well, this is a copout, but that story can't be estimated (at least
              not by
              > me). I'd have to break it down into stories like "must be able to
              run 100
              > hits per second on a Pentium IV" or something.
              >
              > Then I'd have to do some experiments. This process might look
              almost
              > exactly like technology selection.
              >
              > Ronald E Jeffries
              > http://www.XProgramming.com
              > http://www.objectmentor.com

              I think I am faced with having to take a copout of some form. We will
              be creating solutions that are installed by our clients and used by
              their customers. Some clients are large with jobs running through
              hundreds of plants that are accessed though a single Web site. I have
              absolutely no idea how often their customers will be accessing the
              site - the clients don't know either. Trying to put a number of this
              would be a wild guess at best. The worst that can happen if the most
              scalable technology is selected is the project takes longer to
              implement and the deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst
              that can happen if we go for lightweight solutions is that we find
              the system is unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would
              be bad!

              There have been several messages in this forum describing situations
              where EJB was found to be overkill and unnecessary. I am worried that
              selecting another technology could leave me doing major rework
              against a deployment deadline when I run in to the eventual
              performance bottleneck. What success have other Web developers had in
              passing performance limits?
              Keith Richardson
            • Dossy
              ... This does sound like a big cop-out. Can we not apply Yesterday s Weather to this problem? Do you have ANY customers? Or are you still in the haven t
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2001.01.02, Keith Richardson <keith@...> wrote:
                > I think I am faced with having to take a copout of some form. We will
                > be creating solutions that are installed by our clients and used by
                > their customers. Some clients are large with jobs running through
                > hundreds of plants that are accessed though a single Web site. I have
                > absolutely no idea how often their customers will be accessing the
                > site - the clients don't know either. Trying to put a number of this
                > would be a wild guess at best.

                This does sound like a big cop-out. Can we not apply Yesterday's
                Weather to this problem?

                Do you have ANY customers? Or are you still in the "haven't sold
                product" stage and we're just doing a lot of what-if? (If your
                answers are "no" and "yes", then I'm tempted to say YAGNI. ;-) )

                If you already have a customer, can you not use them as a "model"
                for other customers in their size/scale/class, at least to create
                estimates that are even slightly better than WAGs?

                Can you not use measurements from smaller customers to approximate
                what measurements might look like for larger customers? Can you
                not create a spike to at least verify that these approximations
                are "close enough"? (Complexologists would suggest building
                simulations - I tend to agree.)

                It might be very costly to build a worthwhile simulation of a
                theoretical "huge" customer, but with the kind of dollars on
                the line for that kind of customer, wouldn't it be worth it?
                What would be more costly, the simulation or the loss of the
                customer because you didn't fully understand your own product
                that you're selling?

                > The worst that can happen if the most
                > scalable technology is selected is the project takes longer to
                > implement and the deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst
                > that can happen if we go for lightweight solutions is that we find
                > the system is unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would
                > be bad!

                If you're really doing XP, the cost of change curve should be
                "flat enough" such that moving from a lightweight solution to a
                "scalable technology" shouldn't have an oppressive cost.

                If you implement the lightweight solution poorly, sure, it'll
                be that much tougher to enhance the system to meet scalability
                needs later on. But that's not a technology selection problem...

                Make the system usable when it's deployed, and make it deployable
                ASAP for the customers you DO know about. When a big fat customer
                comes along, the money they should pay should justify any serious
                enhancements to the system, and as long as you've kept the system
                as simple as possible, enhancing where it's necessary (and only
                where it's necessary) shouldn't be too hard.


                - Dossy

                --
                Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@...
                Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
              • Ron Jeffries
                ... With all due respect, I believe the above to be almost exactly incorrect. The worst that can happen if a big technology is chosen is that you get to market
                Message 7 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 02:55 AM 1/2/2001 +0000, it seemed like Keith Richardson wrote:
                  >The worst that can happen if the most
                  >scalable technology is selected is the project takes longer to
                  >implement and the deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst
                  >that can happen if we go for lightweight solutions is that we find
                  >the system is unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would
                  >be bad!

                  With all due respect, I believe the above to be almost exactly incorrect.

                  The worst that can happen if a big technology is chosen is that you get to
                  market late, lose market share, and don't learn what people really want
                  until it is too late. The worst that can happen if you go for lightweight
                  solutions is that you have to beef it up upon deployment. But you find that
                  out about a week after you start.

                  Flexibility is better than planning, every time.

                  Ronald E Jeffries
                  http://www.XProgramming.com
                  http://www.objectmentor.com
                • Glen B. Alleman
                  Flexibility versus planning? ... critical (realtime shop floor control) or is it informational to a non-critical set of users? That is a big range of
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Flexibility versus planning?

                    Here's some questions that may help clarify the situation:

                    >>What is the context of the problem here?
                    >>Where are the boundaries of your recommendation here?
                    >>Where in the overall scheme of things does this system fit? Is it mission
                    critical (realtime shop floor control) or is it informational to a
                    non-critical set of users? That is a big range of "domain."

                    The problem described by the original poster was a bit vague I agree. The
                    manufacturing domain problems of "scalability estimates" are common,
                    serious, and at the same time unknown without a lot of leg work. In a large
                    manufacturing systems, "massive customization" is supported by a
                    "configurator" based BOM system. See http://www.configsc.com/logia2.htm as
                    an example of such a system. This is not the best, there are others (I2
                    being a better one). This process can whipsaw the transaction rates by 2 to
                    3 orders of magnitude when a simple "build to order" configuration is
                    changed by marketing in an attempt to reposition a product line. The sizing
                    impacts on this type of plant or shop floor system are a challenge for the
                    experts, let along someone just getting started in the development of a
                    plant data management system.

                    This fellow needs to perform some analysis to determine the boundaries of
                    the problem before embarking on ANY development method. He needs to get a
                    strategy of how to scale the system "if and when" scaling is needed. If it
                    is not needed, fine, but if it is then the system must be capable of
                    performing this scaling without disruption to the ongoing business.

                    If it is an on going business, then there are some CRUD stats somewhere,
                    even if they have to be gathered by hand. Those then are used to "size" the
                    solutions and determine the underlying technology needs. This is really
                    simple IT Strategy stuff. There is definitely missing information in this
                    case, which will most likely cause problems down stream. He's in no position
                    to pick any technology without first understanding the processes and the
                    data that they touch.

                    Glen B Alleman
                    Niwot Ridge Consulting

                    "Every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes"


                    >-----Original Message-----
                    >From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
                    >Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 8:28 PM
                    >To: extremeprogramming@egroups.com
                    >Subject: Re: [XP] Re: Architecture for XP and scalable web sites
                    >
                    >
                    >At 02:55 AM 1/2/2001 +0000, it seemed like Keith Richardson wrote:
                    >>The worst that can happen if the most
                    >>scalable technology is selected is the project takes longer to
                    >>implement and the deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst
                    >>that can happen if we go for lightweight solutions is that we find
                    >>the system is unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would
                    >>be bad!
                    >
                    >With all due respect, I believe the above to be almost exactly incorrect.
                    >
                    >The worst that can happen if a big technology is chosen is that you get to
                    >market late, lose market share, and don't learn what people really want
                    >until it is too late. The worst that can happen if you go for lightweight
                    >solutions is that you have to beef it up upon deployment. But you
                    >find that
                    >out about a week after you start.
                    >
                    >Flexibility is better than planning, every time.
                    >
                    >Ronald E Jeffries
                    >
                  • Patrick Logan
                    ... I would notice that this story is ambiguous.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jan 1, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- "Keith Richardson" <keith@s...> wrote:

                      > How would you have handled the user story: "Must be able to
                      > scale quickly to unpredictable levels when a new client wants
                      > to deploy in a high load environment"?

                      I would notice that this story is ambiguous.
                    • Laurent Bossavit
                      ... Wouldn t it be worse if you selected the most scalable technology, took longer to implement the project, *and* found the system didn t respond well to high
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jan 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > The worst that can happen if the most scalable technology is
                        > selected is the project takes longer to implement and the
                        > deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst that can happen if
                        > we go for lightweight solutions is that we find the system is
                        > unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would be bad!

                        Wouldn't it be worse if you selected the most scalable technology,
                        took longer to implement the project, *and* found the system didn't
                        respond well to high loads when deployed ?

                        Do you have any guarantee that won't happen ? What steps can be
                        taken to prevent this happening ?


                        ========================================
                        We aim to make simple things simple and
                        complex things possible.
                        ========================================
                        Laurent Bossavit - Software Architect
                        >>> laurent.bossavit@... <<<
                        >>> 06 68 15 11 44 <<<
                        >> ICQ#39281367 <<
                        Agence Bless http://www.agencebless.com/
                        ========================================
                      • Keith Richardson
                        ... What a great forum - I posted a message at 10pm and got many great responses by 7am!! Either you guys never sleep or most of you are not is the EST time
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jan 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Laurent Bossavit"
                          <laurent.bossavit@a...> wrote:
                          > > The worst that can happen if the most scalable technology is
                          > > selected is the project takes longer to implement and the
                          > > deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst that can happen if
                          > > we go for lightweight solutions is that we find the system is
                          > > unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would be bad!
                          >
                          > Wouldn't it be worse if you selected the most scalable technology,
                          > took longer to implement the project, *and* found the system didn't
                          > respond well to high loads when deployed ?
                          >
                          > Do you have any guarantee that won't happen ? What steps can be
                          > taken to prevent this happening ?

                          What a great forum - I posted a message at 10pm and got many great
                          responses by 7am!! Either you guys never sleep or most of you are not
                          is the EST time zone!

                          The clear consensus is to keep the technology simple. Now to pick a
                          robust and simple technology that works well with XP. Java is a much
                          cleaner environment than ActiveX which would suggest not using MS-
                          based development environment for IIS. A new question: what
                          combination of development tools and deployment environment is best
                          for a Web application built using XP? It should have a clean object
                          model and a build environment that allows for rapid development cycle
                          times. It must also be robust and a good performer because I don't
                          want to be kludging around limitations or speed bottlenecks. What is
                          being used for XP and how is it working?
                          Keith Richardson
                        • Chad Fowler
                          ... cycle ... I would suggest that keeping your technology choice as open as possible is a good plan. This enables you to start with simplicity and grow when
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jan 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >
                            > The clear consensus is to keep the technology simple. Now to pick a
                            > robust and simple technology that works well with XP. Java is a much
                            > cleaner environment than ActiveX which would suggest not using MS-
                            > based development environment for IIS. A new question: what
                            > combination of development tools and deployment environment is best
                            > for a Web application built using XP? It should have a clean object
                            > model and a build environment that allows for rapid development
                            cycle
                            > times. It must also be robust and a good performer because I don't
                            > want to be kludging around limitations or speed bottlenecks. What is
                            > being used for XP and how is it working?
                            > Keith Richardson

                            I would suggest that keeping your technology choice as open as
                            possible is a good plan. This enables you to start with simplicity
                            and grow when the need arises with less investment than a proprietary
                            alternative would afford. We are successfully using and deploying
                            Enhydra (http://www.enhydra.org) in a change-heavy iterative
                            development environment. We have been very happy with its performance
                            and flexibility (as well as its price--Open Source).
                          • Stefan Schmiedl
                            They work 40 hour weeks and hence have lots of free time on their hands.... :-) Stefan +---------+------------------------- ...
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jan 2, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              They work 40 hour weeks and hence have lots of free time on their
                              hands.... :-)

                              Stefan

                              +---------+-------------------------
                              | from | Keith Richardson <keith@...>
                              | to | extremeprogramming@egroups.com <extremeprogramming@egroups.com>
                              | date | 02.01.2001 16:13
                              | subject | [XP] Re: Architecture for XP and scalable web sites
                              +---------+-------------------------

                              K> What a great forum - I posted a message at 10pm and got many great
                              K> responses by 7am!! Either you guys never sleep or most of you are not
                              K> is the EST time zone!
                            • astl@home.com
                              ... using ... the ... be ... to ... application ... by environment ... no ... solution ... traffic. ... features ... Do the user stories say don t lose my
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jan 12, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Chad Fowler"
                                <chadfowler@y...> wrote:
                                > --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Keith Richardson"
                                > <keith@s...> wrote:
                                > > Hello,
                                > > This forum has included several messages describing problems
                                using
                                > XP
                                > > with EJB, describing EJB as non-OO and other difficulties with
                                the
                                > > EJB architecture. A highly scalable web site must be able to
                                > automate
                                > > persistance of session and environment data, allow deployment to
                                be
                                > > easily adjusted and many other features that EJBs (and more
                                > > completely J2EE) provides. Are there other environments that have
                                > > proven to be better for developing highly scalable solutions with
                                > XP
                                > > or should I interpret these messages as saying that XP is not
                                > > applicable for these needs? Any XP success stories in this area
                                to
                                > be
                                > > shared?
                                > > Keith Richardson
                                >
                                > I think the point of a lot of these messages is that EJB is not, at
                                > least at the beginning of a project, (in most cases) the simplest
                                > thing that could possibly work. A well factored servlet
                                application
                                > provides session persistence (not sure what you mean
                                by "environment"
                                > in this context) and (being well factored) would also give
                                > flexibility for deployment options (things are logically decoupled,
                                > so they can be physically separated down the road).
                                >
                                > In the past, our developers were assuming that scalable-web-
                                > application == J2EE-all-the-way and just going with EJB from the
                                > start. This instroduced complexity in the code, the
                                > development/build process, and the application server deployment.
                                > This complexity invariably lead to various problems (more points of
                                > potential failure).
                                >
                                > The approach we've taken semi-recently with our developers is to
                                > say, "You are free to use EJB (and the rest of the J2EE baggage) if
                                > you can explain why you need it." What we've found so far is that
                                no
                                > one has ever needed it, and we haven't had any related problems.
                                > (And, our applications are *so* much easier to deploy and maintain
                                > now!) In the mean time, we've been trying to keep things well
                                > factored, so they could be easily moved to the more complex
                                solution
                                > should we ever hit the scalability barriers of this approach. My
                                > guess is that we won't ever get there.
                                >
                                > Of course, we're no amazon.com, but we get some pretty heavy
                                traffic.
                                >
                                > Just as an addendum, here's my XP zealot answer:
                                > "must be able to automate persistance of session and environment
                                > data, allow deployment to be easily adjusted and many other
                                features
                                > that EJBs (and more completely J2EE) provides" wasn't in my user
                                > stories. :)
                                >
                                > Chad

                                Do the user stories say "don't lose my data that I am entering just
                                because you want to update the servers?"

                                Ken.
                              • Alan Francis
                                ... ... Can we PLEASE try to keep the copied text to a minimum ? Even if the two new lines are the most
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jan 12, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, astl@h... wrote:
                                  <a zillion lines of copied message>
                                  <followed by....>
                                  > Do the user stories say "don't lose my data that I am entering just
                                  > because you want to update the servers?"

                                  Can we PLEASE try to keep the copied text to a minimum ? Even if the
                                  two new lines are the most insightful piece of observation yet, it's
                                  still anooying to get massive emails full of copied stuff.

                                  Maybe OMI could host an extremeprogramming wiki so conversations
                                  could be conversations ? :-)

                                  Alan
                                • Chad Fowler
                                  ... If they do, then it s time to find the simplest solution that can satisfy the story--again, not limited to EJB (nor very likely to be).
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jan 13, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > > Just as an addendum, here's my XP zealot answer:
                                    > > "must be able to automate persistance of session and environment
                                    > > data, allow deployment to be easily adjusted and many other
                                    > features
                                    > > that EJBs (and more completely J2EE) provides" wasn't in my user
                                    > > stories. :)
                                    > >
                                    > Do the user stories say "don't lose my data that I am entering just
                                    > because you want to update the servers?"
                                    >
                                    > Ken.

                                    If they do, then it's time to find the simplest solution that can
                                    satisfy the story--again, not limited to EJB (nor very likely to be).
                                  • Erik Meade
                                    I mentioned this to Ward a few weeks ago, he said that Extreme Programming is on topic for his (The) Wiki http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FrontPage -- Erik Meade
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jan 17, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I mentioned this to Ward a few weeks ago, he said that Extreme
                                      Programming is on topic for his (The) Wiki
                                      http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FrontPage

                                      --
                                      Erik Meade emeade@...
                                      Senior Consultant Object Mentor, Inc.
                                      http://www.junit.org


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: "Alan Francis" <alan@...>
                                      Subject: Re: Architecture for XP and scalable web sites

                                      Maybe OMI could host an extremeprogramming wiki so conversations
                                      could be conversations ? :-)

                                      Alan
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.