Hi folks, I'm now thinking about taking SCBCD exam. As of now, we know that J2EE1.4 and EJB2.1 final spec released while SCBCD exam is based on J2EE1.3 and EJB2.0 spec. (Am I right?) Sooner or later J2EE1.4 will become a new platform, I'm wondering if SCBCD, more specifically CX-310-090, still be helpful/useful in the next 6 months or at the end of 2004. That leads to the question that how long EJB2.0 will be used in the industries? Also, how different between EJB2.0 and EJB2.1 is? In summary, do you think it's worth taking CX-310-090 in the next 3 months? Thanks in advance for all comments Dan [ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Wiriya ]
Hi, IMHO it is worthwhile taking the exam. It will be about 1-2 years before EJB2.1/J2EE1.4 becomes embedded within the mainstream development arena. During that time, the majority of the work will still be in J2EE1.3. Now, it is worthwhile keeping an eye on the future, hence when coding for J2EE1.3, nothing wrong in "future-proofing" your code to easy make it work with 1.4. So, yes, I believe it is worthwhile taking the exam. -=david=-
Thx David! I think you are right. As long as I know, most of the lastest EJB containers now are EJB-2.0 based container, e.g., BEA Weblogic 8.1, JBoss 3.x, (4.x?). However, I believe that the container providers will luanch their new EJB-2.1 based container soon. (Possibly, this year?) One of the interesting topics for me might be how much different b/w EJB2.0 and 2.1 in terms of beans' behaviours, beans' life cycle, and design pattern. Thanks in advance for all comments Dan
Howdy Dan, good question. I think David gave the perfect answer... it is exactly what Sun's thinking is regarding the SCBCD exam. It is traditionally a *very* slow process for vendors to upgrade their servers (you will see *some* this year, but not most). But that's not the largest issue... the main issue is how long it takes the end-user companies to migrate to the new platform, and that is even *slower*. I have only recently stopped hearing from people using EJB 1.1! (although plenty of people are still using it in production) So, that's why the choice to keep the exam at EJB 2.0 for now, and probably at least a year. We believe that the certification has more value to, say, employers if they know that the certified candidate understands the issues that they face *now*, and that are likely to be in the company today, rather than certifying you on what is not yet in place. Now, we might have adjust this if the EJB 2.1 spec was as big an improvement over 2.0 as 2.0 was over 1.1. But... that is not the case. The Big Change with the J2EE 1.4 is in integrated support for Web Services, and not a lot of folks are even *doing* Web Services today. There are a few other nice features, but the change from EJB 2.0 to 2.1 is not substantial at all, and virtually anything you do in 2.0 you'll still be doing in 2.1. Now, after having said all of that... the SCWCD exam *is* based on J2EE 1.4. But, we believe that the Web containers will be migrated to much more quickly than people will migrate to new EJB containers. (and the exam doesn't come out until later in the year). cheers, Kathy
Sun is reasearching the possibility of some type of Web Services exam. There are no definite plans, since things are still shaking out in the web serivces world. I suspect that there will be *something*, but you probably won't see anything for the next nine months at least. cheers, Kathy
Hi Kathy, Thank you for your answers and info on both EJB2.0 stituation and WebService Cert. It helps me understand more on what's going on. Actually, I'm one of your book's fans. I just passed SCJP coz of reading your (very very good) killer guide book. No doubt. I ordered HF-EJB before I posted this topic and I am anxiously waiting for reading it Now, having known your opinions and read the forums, I have ton of good solid reasons for taking the exam. Thanks a lot , Danai
Hi Kathy, I would like to follow through the HF book with the EJB2.1 specs, but the book says "download the EJB2.0 (not 2.1!)" After taking the beta SCWCD 1.4 exam, I personally think that webservices are going to come out in the industry hard, fast, and soon. I read the servlets-2.4 and JSP-2.0 specs and missed a few questions by not reading the J2EE 1.4 specs (mostly on ejb dd elements), thinking that that stuff was covered in the SCBCD exam. After reading J2EE 1.4 specs, I am now curious about EJB2.1 "messaging types in addition to JMS" and "stateless session bean to implement a web service". I studied ch11-16 of the J2EE1.4tutorial for the SCWCD 1.4 beta and have studied ch8,9,10,18-27 of the same, hoping they will come out with a SCBCD 1.4 exam. All that said, the bottom line is I want to pass the SCBCD exam. Should I still follow EJB2.0? Will I potentially miss questions if I read EJB2.1? (It's a 600 page choice!) I got stumped on some easy ones in the SCWCD 1.4 beta because I read a CramExam book for test 310-80 and didn't catch from reading the specs some simple changes. Example: the values of the bodycontent attribute of the tag directive. The old CramExam book I read said "empty, JSP, tagdependent". j2ee1.4 tutorial, Chapter 15 on "Tag Library Descriptors" says:"four values - tagdependent, JSP, empty, scriptless". jsp-2.0-pfd-spec.pdf ( 1-152 ) - scriptless, tagdependent, empty. Adding that: "A translation error will result if JSP or any other value is used. Defaults to scriptless". Of course this is the doc I read, thinking it was good, until now I realized that the pfd was not the fr. jsp-2.0-fr-spec.pdf (3-46) - tagdependent, JSP, empty. In the beta exam, I thought I saw "scriptless" everywhere. I went back and changed an answer to a question involving this issue. After the test, I was curious, and wanted to find the correct answer. Now, I still don't know which is correct. P.S.Do you have an address of the group studying the beta results so I can forward this question on to them? Thank you very much. Congratulations on the book! Java Studyaholic, Chris Johnson
World domination requires a hollowed out volcano with good submarine access. Tiny ads are optional.