A. I do not deny that it is a problem.
B. I do not think any vendor that dooes not support
backward compatibility does either, but evidently no
one does it deliberately. It simply takes a back seat
to other architectural considerations.
C. When Sybase supports it, then I will stream kudos
over to you, but claiming to understand the value of
the feature and considering the feature without
actually implementing it cannot be considered to be a
competitive advantage. Do you state this consideration
in any white papers ? Is it on your web site ?
Consideration and understanding is such a far cry from
supporting it, I would not wave my flag over it.
//Nicholas
--- Evan Ireland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nicholas wrote:
>
> >>>(Note: Sybase EAServer does not support this
> >>>at present, but at least we understand the value
> of
> >>>doing so).
> >>>
> >
> > Oh I love this. Thank you for clarifying Sybase's
> > position on this issue, Evan.
> >
> > As an aside, I would like to announce my own J2EE
> > offering. Well... I don't actually have one...
> yet,
> > but I too understand the value of a J2EE server.
> Any
> > takers ?
> >
> > Give us all a break.
>
>
> Why should I? Nobody else even seems to want to
> acknowledge the
> obvious. Is backwards compatibility not important to
> anyone out
> there except our customers?
>
> We are actively considering the issue I mentioned.
> Will anyone
> else even acknowledge that it is useful or
> important, or do you
> all want to deny there is a problem?
>
>
> > //Nicholas
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Evan Ireland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Rob Woollen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>><vendor>
> >>>
> >>>WLS RMI/IIOP or WebServices/SOAP clients should
> >>>
> >>not have problems
> >>
> >>>calling between WLS versions.
> >>>
> >>>WLS's RMI/T3 transport does not support calls
> >>>
> >>between 5.1 and 6.x,
> >>
> >>>though I believe it will support versions going
> >>>
> >>forward.
> >>
> >>></vendor>
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's good to hear. And I would be interested to
> >>know if you agree
> >>that some customers find this sort of
> compatibility
> >>important in an
> >>Intranet/Extranet or Internet deployment
> >>configuration.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>-- Rob
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 12:36:17PM +1200, Evan
> >>>
> >>Ireland wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Well clearly I wouldn't if I was a WebLogic
> >>>>
> >>customer :-)
> >>
> >>>>But if I was a Sybase customer, I might well do
> >>>>
> >>this if I
> >>
> >>>>want to take advantage of scalability features
> >>>>
> >>(such as
> >>
> >>>>eneity bean object caching) in a new server
> >>>>
> >>version without
> >>
> >>>>spending tnes of thousands of dollars having
> >>>>
> >>client installations
> >>
> >>>>upgraded. Bear in mind these client
> installations
> >>>>
> >>might be outside
> >>
> >>>>my own company and may be very expensive to
> >>>>
> >>upgrade. Java applets
> >>
> >>>>might help but what if the clients aren't
> written
> >>>>
> >>in Java? What
> >>
> >>>>if they are written in VB?
> >>>>
> >>>>Should I have to upgrade my browser just because
> >>>>
> >>Amazon puts
> >>
> >>>>in a new web server version? I think not. You
> may
> >>>>
> >>think EJB is
> >>
> >>>>fundamentally different. I would disagree.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also, have you considered that some of your
> >>>>
> >>clients may be
> >>
> >>>>themselves servers? In a large enterprise, who
> >>>>
> >>wants to have
> >>
> >>>>to upgrade versions for all of their connected
> >>>>
> >>servers just
> >>
> >>>>because one of them is to be upgraded.
> >>>>
> >>>>We have even had requests from customers wanting
> >>>>
> >>app-server
> >>
> >>>>clusters with mixed versions. Do I want to
> >>>>
> >>simultaneously
> >>
> >>>>have to upgrade all nodes in my 20-node cluster
> >>>>
> >>(taking my
> >>
> >>>>site down for several days) when I can do it
> >>>>
> >>piece-meal and
> >>
> >>>>keeping my site up. (Note: Sybase EAServer does
> >>>>
> >>not support this
> >>
> >>>>at present, but at least we understand the value
> >>>>
> >>of doing so).
> >>
> >>>>True enterprise software vendors understand the
> >>>>
> >>importance of
> >>
> >>>>backwards compatibility. Why throw out the 'old'
> >>>>
> >>if it can
> >>
> >>>>happily 'co-exist' with the new?
> >>>>
> >>>>Anyway, I think I've had my say and I'll stop my
> >>>>
> >>BEA bashing for
> >>
> >>>>a few weeks :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>D
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans
> >>>>>>
> >>development
> >>
> >>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>
> >>Evan Ireland
> >>
> >>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:10 PM
> >>>>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: differrence in weblogic 5.1 and
> >>>>>>
> >>weblogic 6.0
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
Nicholas Whitehead
Home: (973) 377 9335
Cell: (973) 615 9646
Work(@ JP Morgan): (212) 235 5783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
===========================================================================
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".
