The following comments have been recorded for No

• Kudos to you! I hadn't thohgut of that! (22 Sep 2018 00:00)
• 1 (16 Nov 2016 00:00)
• http://polyphyllus.net/site/360-deals.com/ (3 Dec 2015 00:00)
• Very true! Makes a change to see sooneme spell it out like that. :) (18 Oct 2015 00:00)
• k (18 Jan 2006 00:00)
• no - in the future, maybe (26 Sep 2002 00:00)
• NO! (5 Apr 2002 00:00)
• Entity bean is just overkill. Who can do it the best? I believe this is Database Vendor. (12 Jan 2002 00:00)
• Why on earth would I want to introduce even more network latency, PNS dependencies and generally unnecessarily complexity to a production website? (12 Dec 2001 00:00)
• But I'd like to someday. (20 Nov 2001 00:00)
• that hammer is too big for my nails (16 Nov 2001 00:00)
• Know a lot about EJB, particularly that there is significant overhead. Haven't found the right application yet. (11 Nov 2001 00:00)
• It needs an investment in time. (9 Nov 2001 00:00)
• When we started, EJB wasn't ready. Now that I know more about it, I'm glad we don't use it. I don't understand how Entity beans can scale on sites that get millions of hits a day. (7 Nov 2001 00:00)
• In the projects we do, there no need. JSP is just enough for us. (5 Nov 2001 00:00)
• Plan to avoid EJB in favor of JSP tags and Struts action classes. (2 Nov 2001 00:00)
• Never had the need for them, really. (1 Nov 2001 00:00)
• Jason, I would be interested in what others thinks about JDO, too - when is its use appropriate, and when not? (29 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Too slow. (29 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Getting there, haven't had a chance to use them yet. (27 Oct 2001 00:00)
• All my clients where using only 1 server to run their web application. I did not see big advantages of using EJB with only one server(No load balancing, No distributed web applications) (27 Oct 2001 00:00)
• a way tooo slow (26 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Not yet, but I am going to use EJBs in my current project. (26 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Too slow (26 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Why complicate the process, JavaBeans on the web server are so simple. (26 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Large, opaque, overly complex model (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• assumed RMI or JMS was slower than custom sockets protocol (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• There's a great deal of overhead associated with EJBs. EJB technology is useful in a J2EE architecture but many sites don't require enterprise level support. (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• i know exactly when to use EJBs (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• So far, there has been no need. JSP and servlets have been sufficient. But it probably has to do with scope/scale. (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Overkill in many applications, but I think they will be the norm eventually - in another year or so... (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• but I plan to at least use CMP (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Servlets solves ours problems. We still dont neee EJB. What they do , that servelts cant do ? (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Overkill (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• I have done numerous servlet based products. None needed ejbs, a servlet engine was more then enough. (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Currently to much overhead (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• we should and will soon (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Took Brett Maclaughlin 's advice, use it where you need scalability (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• I think that it is often overkill, especially if the app isn't an enterprise-wide app. We have also deployed enterprise wide apps successfully without EJB. It's much simplier! (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• still looking into it (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• The size sites we design don't call for the added complexity. (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• to difificult to implement quickly (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Overkill for our needs (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Not worth it for a small DB site (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• But I strongly expect to use them in the future (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• It (and database in general) does seem as an overkill for my particular application. We use XML files. (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Would like to use, but haven't seen any compelling real-scale usage reports, plus have seen much bad press on EJB problems (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Torque within turbine gave me all that I needed (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Overkill!! (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• does not feel like a good technology (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• We're still working on stabilizing our EJB environment. (25 Oct 2001 00:00)
• But we are about to do so now, as at long last we have sorted out when and how we want to develop and use them. (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• overkill (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• EJB should be more simple to develop...and we need an open source reference implementation EJB server... (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• I knew they were not useful before making that mistake! (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Want to, but intimdated by effort (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• We're considering it as a future option, but for the time being, it is an overkill for us. (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• will in 2 months (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Still using JDK 1.1 (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• don't plan to use for simple websites; but definitely for enterprise systems (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• But I want to. (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• JDBC Rocks! (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• they seem so proprietary--almost foreboding (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• use servlets, our own factory management and database persistence (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• A total mess (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• I haven't really seen the need yet. A good persistence solution (we use TOPLink) works quite well. (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• We are considering (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• no app server yet though (24 Oct 2001 00:00)
• Haven't needed them enough yet. (24 Oct 2001 00:00)