There certianly is a class of applications that can be built more simply then they are. However I have to strongly disagree that these account for *most* of them. Maybe this is your experince but it is certianly not mine nor is it...]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:49:15 -0500 Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:49:15 -0500 Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:49:15 -0500 Nov 16, 2005 peter lin 0 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516 There certianly is a class of applications that can be built more simply then they are. However I have to strongly disagree that these account for *most* of them. Maybe this is your experince but it is certianly not mine nor is it the...]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:23:09 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:23:09 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:23:09 -0500 Nov 15, 2005 Erik Engbrecht 1 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516 Distributed caches that are transacted are not for vast majority of apps (even most large scale web apps that need massive scale). The vast majority of data-driven web apps do not need this capability ..

2) When trying to...]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:12:58 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:12:58 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:12:58 -0500 Nov 15, 2005 Luis Neves 0 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516
#3: I think Luis posted his code/results to illustrate that anyone can post anything and call it "a benchmark with full...]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:41:55 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:41:55 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:41:55 -0500 Nov 15, 2005 Greg Leake 0 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:08:40 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:08:40 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:08:40 -0500 Nov 15, 2005 Greg Leake 2 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516
I hav'nt deeply investigated the code, actually I listed only included in the arcticle itself ... But,...]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:43:03 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:43:03 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:43:03 -0500 Nov 15, 2005 Mike Skorik 0 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516
Thanks for the positive words. A couple of notes and my thoughts:

So to summarize:This is a pretty real comparison of 2 technology stacks, unfortunately it's Microsoft's soon-to-be-released next-gen stack against a stack...]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0500 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0500 Nov 15, 2005 Greg Leake 1 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516 So what's to be done? ...

Not only that, but I'd like to see what's the impact when going from single machine to cluster for each of the 3 solutions (.Net, JDBC and EJB), from the code, configuration, design and architecture...]]> Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:13:07 -0500 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:13:07 -0500 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:13:07 -0500 Nov 14, 2005 Henrique Steckelberg 3 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516
This is a pretty real comparison of 2 technology stacks, unfortunately it's Microsoft's soon-to-be-released next-gen stack against a stack that is clearly inappropriate for the task at hand. Shame on IBM for putting this out there...]]> Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:54:15 -0500 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:54:15 -0500 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:54:15 -0500 Nov 14, 2005 Jason Carreira 6 http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=37516 Peter,I like the scenario you highlight, I will try to get this in place for the near future, so stay tuned.One note on your comments, however. Actually SQL 2000 has a concurrent user connection limit of 32,768 I believe, not 250. see: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:04:36 -0500 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:04:36 -0500 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:04:36 -0500 Nov 14, 2005 peter lin 0