Java EE – compare openejb with GlassFish

Can we replace GlassFish with Tomcat / openejb for lighter applications?

What are the limitations of openejb instead of GlassFish?

to greet

Solution

I guess the problem is about the runtime environment, but I still don't understand what lighter applications mean Memory usage? Start time? Deployment time? what's the matter with you? Please define the light

For what is worth, I think GlassFish 3 is a light running time, and my experience is very positive From the product data sheet:

Second, I believe that the glue between all parts that you get with a real application server is part of the added value

Third, I have never played openejb. I only use it for testing. I have never planned to use it in production, mainly because of its poor reputation See comment on Geronimo's performance on TSS (from Hani Suleiman, don't be surprised if it's caustic):

Things may have changed, openejb may have improved, at least a little, but there are still:

>Openejb does not fully support EJB 3.1. > Tomcat openejb is still not a complete Java EE implementation, and you may need to add some parts to your biology (not even Java EE 6). > Management, cluster, etc.? > If you don't need a complete Java EE 6 configuration file, then there is the Java EE 6 web configuration file > I'm happy with GlassFish 3. I don't find it "heavy" (I suggest trying) > I know it can perform well

For all these reasons, I won't consider Tomcat openejb instead of GlassFish, especially if there are no problems to solve

Related issues

> Which technologies does Tomcat support > What is an Enterprise Java Bean really? > Real world comparisons of Glassfish and JBoss 5?

You can also have a look

> GlassFish 2 vs. Tomcat 6 > Putting GlassFish v3 in Production: Essential Surviving Guide