Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I find it strange that democratic societies continually complain about the lack of absolute authority, Kings. Sun Systems would have to have the stature of a King to make Java "write once, run anywhere". The problem is that free peoples are running around creating new protocols, hardware and software services. The world is not top down. The King does not and cannot provide. Smart Kings have always known that. They operated by extending their blessings on work and innovation, adopting it and by making it available to all. Sun is operating like a dumb King, like the mafia: "if youse toucha my Java I breaka you face" (political correctness note: as someone of Italian descent I am allowed to make Italian jokes). Sun is not rushing out to adoptand incorporate new approaches, discoveries and hardware protocols. They are cocooned behind lawyers, threating vile lawsuits if their precious Java is touched. In the meantime the world is progressing with new techniques and approaches, to the point where the story will be "Once apon a time there was Java."
You hated him and you still dont trust him, but King MS is going to stir up the dirt again with .NET. The results and tools are more refined and defined than any of his legacy buddies can provide.
Cha Cha cha Changes Turn and face the change, Chacha changes! All you green screen rollers! Cha cha changes!
Cha Cha cha Changes Turn and face the change, Chacha changes! All you green screen rollers! Cha cha changes!
.NET is yet another attempt to pull a "Microsoft" and and make popular Web Services that are MS-centric. MS does this everytime a new technology really starts to catch on (remember the "You don't need the Internet, you have MSN" line that MS used to spew? That is, unti they figured out the net was too big to stop). Same with Java (remember J++?). My point is, MS didn't give any alternative way to use these technologies. BEA is merely adding Cajun as a value add.
If Sun chooses not to add Cajun to J2EE, BEA should make the Cajun toolkit available to any one that wishes to run it. For a fee of course
If Sun chooses not to add Cajun to J2EE, BEA should make the Cajun toolkit available to any one that wishes to run it. For a fee of course
As I see, portability is more important when we think in two issues: deployment and scalability.
1. Deployment: is very important to us (developers) to be enabled to develop an application on any OS (Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.) and deploy it to another any OS.
2. Scalability: is very important to our clients (users) to be enabled to scale their applications as they need. For instance: scale from a single- server Win2K/Intel configuration to a clustered four-server HP-UX configuration.
These two issues are adressed by J2EE App Servers and there are no problems on "be married" with a single App Server vendor.
Our clients is already "married" with sofware and hardware vendors. They have contracts with HP or Sun or IBM or Microsoft or etc., and they will not radically change from one to another.
The only issue that I see as a problem is that we (developers) have to buy licenses and get know-how of a wide range of App Servers.
1. Deployment: is very important to us (developers) to be enabled to develop an application on any OS (Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.) and deploy it to another any OS.
2. Scalability: is very important to our clients (users) to be enabled to scale their applications as they need. For instance: scale from a single- server Win2K/Intel configuration to a clustered four-server HP-UX configuration.
These two issues are adressed by J2EE App Servers and there are no problems on "be married" with a single App Server vendor.
Our clients is already "married" with sofware and hardware vendors. They have contracts with HP or Sun or IBM or Microsoft or etc., and they will not radically change from one to another.
The only issue that I see as a problem is that we (developers) have to buy licenses and get know-how of a wide range of App Servers.
In order for a system to perform satisfactorily, the system should be designed to use advantages of the system. Database stored procedures is a good example of code that increases performance and decreases portability. Working towards maintaining portability is fine, but it only goes so far. A properly optimized system will not be portable.
So it's which is more important to you then, portability or performance? Is that really all it comes down to?
Does your end user really care how easily the app he's using can be moved from Linux to Solaris, if he's spending most of his time waiting for it to access data? Is portability all its cracked up to be?
Does your end user really care how easily the app he's using can be moved from Linux to Solaris, if he's spending most of his time waiting for it to access data? Is portability all its cracked up to be?
Have you ever asked some "traditional designer" to design a home page for you. I did and in every meeting I had those marvelous printed designs, and in every meeting I asked that I want to see it on the screen. I was not suprised when after 15 or more meetings arrived the day that they had to show it on the screen and, suprise! it was almost unreadable!... I must say that after this experience, they have learned to do it well! and me!!
On one hand we have this pristine Java - unsullied by any vendor extension, pure and virgin. The paragon of slashdot.
On the other hand, we have vendors looking to push it and make some money out of it. If they do not make money out of it, it will not be supported.
Java will be a tricky implementation "Sure boss, that is going to be a problem, as the tools for the job stink, but hey, it is worth it, isn't it, so we can sleep at night knowing that it runs on all platforms, vendor-independent".
Why the big issue about vendor independence? I think there is some confusion creeping in here. Here is my code that runs on Unix, Windows, Linux etc. Platform independent. But in each case, I am locking into a vendor and their extensions. So- big deal.
J2EE will be held back while people insist on it remaining the Virgin Queen. Elizabeth I might have got away with it, but Java will not. Microsoft is a different kettle of fish to an Armada and the Duke of Parma.
On the other hand, we have vendors looking to push it and make some money out of it. If they do not make money out of it, it will not be supported.
Java will be a tricky implementation "Sure boss, that is going to be a problem, as the tools for the job stink, but hey, it is worth it, isn't it, so we can sleep at night knowing that it runs on all platforms, vendor-independent".
Why the big issue about vendor independence? I think there is some confusion creeping in here. Here is my code that runs on Unix, Windows, Linux etc. Platform independent. But in each case, I am locking into a vendor and their extensions. So- big deal.
J2EE will be held back while people insist on it remaining the Virgin Queen. Elizabeth I might have got away with it, but Java will not. Microsoft is a different kettle of fish to an Armada and the Duke of Parma.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
