Does anyone still use this WikiTag? Is it time to delete this experiment?
New name for page previously called OnTopicButUseless?.
Links being remapped and contents will be moved here. Thanks for patience -- dl
This include all OnTopic pages that are in the SlooowDelete? process. They are marked for removal due to:
- they are walled gardens that have been abandoned
- they cover material that have passed used by date, and no suitable refactoring would help. (e.g. a page about IBM punch cards would be relevant in 1970s, but not in this century)
- page carries very little nontrivial information, or is largely a duplication of existing material, or should be folded into another page, etc
- in rare instances, the page has created MoreHeatThanLight, as there are existing members of the community bent on stating their views at the exclusion of other viewpoints.
- other reasons??
This is a page to list
OnTopicButNotNeeded pages that
hopefully not contentious. For people wanting to remove controversial
OnTopic pages please use the IsThisPageOk
? mechanism.
Typically an OnTopic page make it way here because it has technical information that is only of interest to historians. Keeping it around would only diminish the credibility of WardsWiki.
I suggest visitors of this page to check new additions, and if you find any redeeming value in some of the contents, MoveItElsewhere and delete the page (after removing links of course). In the unlikely case where the reader feel the page should not be deleted, then I suggest the contents of the page to be throughly edited to ensure its currency.
Pages listed here:
Pages that are here in final days include:
EjbsAndDistributedTransaction concerns
12.145.34.103 deleted the page, which MicrosoftSlave restored, on account
- My reasons are this information must have been correct at some point in the past, as KyleBrown who was here had lots of relevant experience.
Can we leave this page around for a few more weeks? It has been around for a long time and I have only noticed delete attempts now (Nov2004) on the page in the six month I have been here. I hope the warnings I have posted on the source page would direct people attention here, both people who wants to keep, and people who wants to delete. Thanks --dl
- Costin I am equally concerned about erroneous and outdated information affecting the credibility of other perfectly good pages. I am concerned only about quick deletes, especially for pages that have been around a long time.
- No, it wasn't a quick delete. The invalid claim was challenged by me 2 years ago. Since nobody picks the task of defending the invalid claim, I think it has to be deleted.
- I am concerned that DistributedTransaction, implemented in the Java environment without the use of Ejb, are only short-term solutions that have to be rebuilt. Maybe Kyle made his statements in those context. I have seen many times over that the best technical solutions do not last, due to market considerations. So please be patient with those of us who have interest in hearing different views. -- dl
- Would you settle for having that page tagged OnTopicButNotNeeded, so other people who know about Java environment can agree with the delete (or maybe a suitable rewording/change etc?) It is now in departure lounge, and dated Nov2004.
Jun05 DavidLiu stuck his fingers in this hot pie, hoping to have a treat instead of burnt finger. Various parties who contributed before and active at C2 at this time invited to continue the discussion.
---
OK folks, I'm here at David's prompting. Let's go way, way back. In the early days of J2EE (probably before Costin is remembering) the only JTA implementations came from the EJB vendors. You could get a JTA implementation(that allowed full 2-phase distributed transactions) from WebLogic or from IBM, or one of the other J2EE application server vendors and that was about it. Now, of course, that's no longer true. You can get a JTA implementation from many different places.
The real magic is in JTA, that's true. As stated above (which is true) EJB's hide JTA. No I seem to remember that at the VERY early stages of J2EE you couldn't even access JTA from the servlet containers in all J2EE app vendors -- I believe the mechanism for that (the standard JNDI lookup of the TransactionManager?) wasn't fully standardized until J2EE 1.2. (If someone could verify that I'd appreciate it). I certainly remember that in the early days of WebSphere (which has always hewn VERY tightly to the J2EE standards, much more so than other vendors) that this was true.
CategoryWikiMaintenance
On Topic But Not Needed