Re: Mapping SQL Result Sets to Browsers

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maurice O'Prey wrote:
> Nathan
>
> I don't really know what point it is you are making, but it seems to me you
> are promoting the use of business objects. Personally I fully advocate their
> use (and agree with Walden, disagree with Joe). The benefits in performance,
> scalability and developer productivity are real and easily recognised and
> very real.
>   
Respectfully, Maurice, how can you disagree with me?  I didn't say 
business objects were bad, I simply said that delegating computation and 
access to another layer can add extra overhead.  Note the word *can*.   
The only way you can disagree with me is if you're saying it *cannot* 
add overhead, at which point you're (respectfully) out of your mind.

I am really tired of people arguing with anything that even questions 
their favorite architectural viewpoint.  There is no one right answer, 
and regardless of your claims to performance and scalability for 
"business objects", each design decision needs to be made within the 
context of the project.

There is no one right solution.  Use the best tool for the job.  And 
keep an open mind.

Joe


P.S. This is why I wanted to stay out of this.  You claim that business 
objects provide superior performance, scalability and productivity.  
Yet, you don't define exactly what a business object is.  Is it 
something written in Java?  Are you thus saying that Java performs 
better than RPG?  That it scales better?  I hope not, because I can 
prove that wrong ten different ways.  The concept of reusable business 
logic may indeed perform better and be scalable, but that can be 
attained in RPG just as easily (some might argue more easily, since the 
syntax is simpler).  In any case, I'll bow out now, because we've 
wandered into the area where hyperbole replaces reality.  I hate these 
talking head discussions because even when you try to help, someone 
paints a bullseye on your back...