Oh My,
I hate to agree with the competition, but "here here!".
The sort of diatribe that has abounded on this thread only hurts J2EE.
<vendor>
Ironically we think building an EJB server on CORBA is a great thing (we
released an EJB server with this architecture a year before anyone else
did). None the less the server has to compete on its own merits above the
protocol level. Some do gravitate to GemStone/J because of its CORBA basis,
but overall find that the higher level functionality, performance,
scalability, etc... of the server are what customers really care about.
</vendor>
Humbly,
-Chris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 12:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Does IIOP Matter !!! READ THIS !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> (I am reposting this as the post I made last night does not seem
> to be making the list. I apologies if you get more than one copy.)
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
> Your response, and generally, the aggressive marketing that Inprise is
> doing on this list, compels us reply. By and large, our attitude
> towards competition remains one of "live and let live", so I have no
> intention of furthering the dishing that has gone on here of late. We
> applaud innovation especially wrt to advancing J2EE. The Inprise
> tradition of innovating, going back to adopting Java, developing
> Caffeine, is established and respected, its entrance into the the EJB
> container market is welcome.
>
> I'll add that I have nothing short of the utmost respect for the
> numerous other vendors on the list that have shown restraint in the
> face of recent posts. This makes perfect sense since vendors who have
> customers can not afford the vitriol, still it speaks well of them
> that they continue to treat this list with respect. I urge vendors and
> their boosters to use the vendor's own news groups for vendor specific
> traffic as EJB Interests is not an appropriate forum for promotional
> posts.
>
> We at BEA count ourselves among the CORBA vendors that are happy that
> the CORBA spec continues to progress. We have a lot of interest in the
> ORB, not the least of which is motivated by protecting our customers'
> investment in our ORB products. But this does not lead us to elevate
> even our own ORB infrastructure to the level called for by the EJB
> Interop spec. In this, we side decidedly with Rickard and invite you
> to do the same. The reasons are exactly as spelled out in Rickard's
> post, and ironically illustrated by your response. For example,
> Rickard states that there are existing and historical problems with
> IIOP, that in effect it does not work; you then talk directly to the
> evidence that contradicts you, supports his statements, namely that
> there is no interoperable security context. Further on, you argue that
> IIOP is just a protocol, yet it constrains innovation, prescribing ORB
> constructs for proxies and invocation (DII). You argue that IIOP is
> not obtrusive and make the incredulous claim that customers ask for
> and support the obtrusiveness.
>
> With all due respect, if CORBA was so great, why are so many ORB
> vendors re-launching themselves as EJB containers? I have nothing
> against this approach, having adopted it ourselves, but as I've
> wondered how this came about, I come to the conclusion that as an
> industry the CORBA market was worried about the wrong things. Compare
> the relative failure of the IIOP protocol, described in your own
> words, to the success of, say, HTTP: the comparison leads me to
> conclude that IIOP, as Rickard describes, is irrelevant, far from the
> required standard bearer that you call for here. As Rickard points
> out, IIOP is great for talking to C++. We agree. Your arguments in
> effect invite us to follow the path that the CORBA vendors have trod
> for years.
>
> We decline.
>
> We decline because the argument in favor is specious, too weak, and
> the arguments against it are too compelling: we decline because in the
> bigger picture, it is not just interoperability between EJB containers
> that is being addressed but rather interoperability across J2EE. J2EE
> calls for a level of interop that puts further, as yet to be defined,
> requirements on JDBC, JNDI, JTS, JMS, EJB. The functional requirements
> for each of those specification are, in and of themselves, rich and
> call out for innovative solutions. In our opinion, IIOP is dated and
> inefficient, not especially suited when both sides are Java, and there
> are no real examples of it working as claimed (respects to Fujitsu,
> Hitachi, others). We decline even though we offer support for
> RMI-IIOP, albeit targeting support for C++ connectivity with our own
> products, based on our own experience as a provider of an RMI-IIOP
> solution.
>
> I have a hard time understanding why we are even having this
> discussion. The only context that appeals to me at the moment is this:
> CORBA is a brand. Like all brands, it has some strong followers.
> Technology companies that market that brand abound. Here the attempt
> is being made to market that brand in the J2EE space, but not
> everybody buys it: only those who are loyal to the brand are drawn to
> products that bear the brand. The contrast is that J2EE is not defined
> as narrowly or even in terms of that brand, hence calls for the
> plurality and the opportunities we see in the market today. All the
> better for J2EE, imo.
>
> Where does this leave us?
>
> Java and J2EE owe their success to the API and SPI. Clearly, we would
> not be here otherwise. We argue, along with Rickard, that to stimulate
> innovation and motivate the progress of the J2EE specifications, we
> need to continue the pattern of success with precisely those
> approaches.
>
> We invite you to do the same or argue your cause at the next round
> table discussion. Until then, let's take this discussion off line.
>
> ==========================================================================
> =
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the
> body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
