Re: [ANN] Apache's Position on the JSPA (was: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on 1/30/02 4:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it doesn't give me a clear idea about what we want. Can you give me a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect. It just seems like we should be asking for something and being specific. -Andy Here is what we want: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html Kudo's to Jason Hunter for writing it. snip/ I read it last night from CVS. I just wanted to say that I am really proud and excited to see Apache stand up for something! Lets keep up the good work! :) Kevin - -- Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965 Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED], Web - http://relativity.yi.org/ These are dangerous days. To say what you feel is to dig your own grave. Remember what I told you. If they hated me, they will hate you. - Sinead O'Connor -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt iD8DBQE8YEJgAwM6xb2dfE0RAobWAJ0WAcvgbh8ly/cSRL07n8a2ltro4gCbBSQV yseYSQ3XUeztafUaIG+qZwk= =/8// -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])
I've been lurking on this list for several years, and not speaking about things I'm not contributing to. But Andy's comment here about EJB J2EE goes right to the point, and triggers my passion ... As an architect, I've been in 5 projects in the last 2.5 years where EJBs were on the table, and in every case but one there have been overwhelming reasons to avoid getting involved with that kind of technology. And in the remaining case, it was already live when I came on board but thankfully the designer had not used Entity Beans, which made it almost tolerable. In the last project (a major customer-care callcenter app), they had used Entity Beans, and Websphere, and there were 500 EJBs, and 4700 distinct application classes. It took 2 days of continuous processing just to 'deploy' the beans, and I was called in when they found they couldn't meet adequate performance. Related, of course to the modelling of the database through Entity Beans. I won't go into the details, but believe me there were big problems in just about every area I looked at, not least developer productivity with the toolsets. My advice was unreservedly to junk both EJB and Websphere, since any competent designer could implement a solution with about a tenth of the complexity involved, and with no need for these opaque tools that you can't control. Yes, EJB is a complete bodge of a design, and RPC invocation techniques would only be acceptable if they were completely transparent, instead of requiring you to do so much plumbing yourself. But personally, I think RPC is entirely overrated, and it is a mistake to try to program as though a remote call had the same characteristics as a local one. The Pointy Haired Management are influenced by other views of the marketplace, of course, but they don't really make any sense if you can see where technology like this is likely to end up in the longer term. (i.e. replaced by something better). The rest of J2EE ? Well, Servlets is great, JSP is just about OK, (but of course you really wanted a templating engine). And among the rest of the APIs, there seem to be some that are OK, but an awful lot of it is pretty mediocre. Overall, it is Java *not* living up to its early promise. In summary, after a couple of years wondering 'Why am I the only person to see this ?' it's a relief to see Andy's post. I also remember seeing Jon's comment 'WAKE UP PEOPLE' a few weeks back (before Outlook trashed my mailbase) and though I think he is commenting on Sun's military strategy rather than the technicalities of EJB (am I right there ?) I do think that we need a much more public protest about the weakness of the technologies on offer - too many companies are forcing developers down the J2EE path. DotNet doesn't have to be the winner from such a protest, either. There are much better ways to do things, and at present customised solutions win hands-down on every count except 'common culture'. I know this is not much Jakarta related (unless Jakarta can take on J2EE directly ?), but it does seem a very important issue in the context of server-side Java. How much support exists for this point of view ? Does anyone have pointers for areas where rational discontent is brewing in a less 'humble' form ? - Tim - Original Message - From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 January 2002 01:58 Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:54, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it doesn't give me a clear idea about what we want. Can you give me a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect. It just seems like we should be asking for something and being specific. -Andy That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows exactly what we want. There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes around here that unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, discussions about opening some of that up (including posting what we want to the public site) are going on now. For starters: I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the rest of the JDK. Personally I'm having a hard time getting particularly in uproar as I think the central core of J2EE - Enterprise Java Beans is such a poor standard, that I'm not particularly upset that its not *free*. I should not say these things publicly, as I still have to work in these things, but in truth EJB and particularly Entity beans is a less that elegant kludge. In truth J2EE is kind of a scam. It claims to be aiming for compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big of a role in it. They want to have lots of room for proprietary extensions. Its market one thing but actually sell another. I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard
Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: To be fair, WebSphere is probably more troublesome then the other containers (at least thats been my experience with it). I do think there is a time and place for RPC. I however think better support for location independence is required. (snip) I would suggest gaining experience with other containers (BEA and jBoss for starters, you can download a trial of the former and the latter is opensource) so that you can discriminate the problems that are exist in WebSphere from those in EJBs as a whole. Not because you want to just do not-ejb but so that you don't repeat the same mistakes. I have implemented a system using Container Managed EntityBeans that worked fairly well. I used Jonas (it was some time ago). It was smaller than the original poster example (about 20 entity classes, tens of thousands of instances). I spent a lot of time getting the entity design right. From the original description, it looks like the problems in the quoted project came from bad system design, more than from EJB technology as such. Comments on my experience: - The location and engine independence was a true marvel. I was developing with postgres/linux and deploying under MSSQLServer/NT with the same source code. Only small diffs in configuration needed. - Performance was not good, but scalability was. - Leaving transaction and persistence management to the container proved good at the end. - My main issue in the development were related with using JSP for the interface (JSP sucks (c) Jon :) ) So, while I agree with political/licensing issues being of concern, I would not disqualify EJB as a whole from a technological point of view. YMMV. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])
snip I have implemented a system using Container Managed EntityBeans that worked fairly well. I used Jonas (it was some time ago). It was smaller than the original poster example (about 20 entity classes, tens of thousands of instances). I spent a lot of time getting the entity design right. From the original description, it looks like the problems in the quoted project came from bad system design, more than from EJB technology as such. Comments on my experience: - The location and engine independence was a true marvel. I was developing with postgres/linux and deploying under MSSQLServer/NT with the same source code. Only small diffs in configuration needed. - Performance was not good, but scalability was. - Leaving transaction and persistence management to the container proved good at the end. - My main issue in the development were related with using JSP for the interface (JSP sucks (c) Jon :) ) So, while I agree with political/licensing issues being of concern, I would not disqualify EJB as a whole from a technological point of view. YMMV. My experience with Distributed Object Systems goes back to early CORBA and DCOM. I've seen about as many failures in just about every distributed system, regardless of technology flavour. EJB is just the latest, and as seems usual in our industry, lots of people are coming in, treating it as green field development, and are making the same mistakes. Mostly, they ignore that the choice of making a system distributed is fundamental. You can not take an Object Model and arbitrarily cleave it and produce a good Distributed Object Model. The worst case of this I ever saw was a system that had String as a CORBA object. EJB also brings to the table all of the problems of the Object/Relational impedance mismatch. It's an empirical fact at this point that rows in a table are bad objects. They're data, and have no behavior. Turning them into objects with container managed persistence doesn't make them good objects. Objects are composed out of many rows spanning several tables. That's hard to do with CMP. Just my $0.02. This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e-mail. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
-Original Message- From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:54, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it doesn't give me a clear idea about what we want. Can you give me a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect. It just seems like we should be asking for something and being specific. -Andy That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows exactly what we want. There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes around here that unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, discussions about opening some of that up (including posting what we want to the public site) are going on now. For starters: I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the rest of the JDK. Personally I'm having a hard time getting particularly in uproar as I think the central core of J2EE - Enterprise Java Beans is such a poor standard, that I'm not particularly upset that its not *free*. I should not say these things publicly, as I still have to work in these things, but in truth EJB and particularly Entity beans is a less that elegant kludge. In truth J2EE is kind of a scam. It claims to be aiming for compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big of a role in it. They want to have lots of room for proprietary extensions. Its market one thing but actually sell another. I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard that achieves the goals of EJBs without being limited by its faulty design and backward compatibility with its original faultier design. Just my humble opinion on that. Check out AJB in Avalon. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-devm=101158982807771w=2 Uses AltRMI from the Commons to achieve RMI with extending Remote or throwing remote exception. Now you can publish any class/interface remotely... Cheers, Scott -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
That's awesome, I'll check that out! On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 13:11, Scott Sanders wrote: -Original Message- From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:54, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it doesn't give me a clear idea about what we want. Can you give me a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect. It just seems like we should be asking for something and being specific. -Andy That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows exactly what we want. There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes around here that unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, discussions about opening some of that up (including posting what we want to the public site) are going on now. For starters: I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the rest of the JDK. Personally I'm having a hard time getting particularly in uproar as I think the central core of J2EE - Enterprise Java Beans is such a poor standard, that I'm not particularly upset that its not *free*. I should not say these things publicly, as I still have to work in these things, but in truth EJB and particularly Entity beans is a less that elegant kludge. In truth J2EE is kind of a scam. It claims to be aiming for compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big of a role in it. They want to have lots of room for proprietary extensions. Its market one thing but actually sell another. I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard that achieves the goals of EJBs without being limited by its faulty design and backward compatibility with its original faultier design. Just my humble opinion on that. Check out AJB in Avalon. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-devm=101158982807771w=2 Uses AltRMI from the Commons to achieve RMI with extending Remote or throwing remote exception. Now you can publish any class/interface remotely... Cheers, Scott -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- www.superlinksoftware.com www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html - fix java generics! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news and status page. -Ted. Original Message Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta WebSite CVS List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jon 02/01/30 13:53:04 Modified:docs index.html xdocsindex.xml Log: lets have a little fun. Revision ChangesPath 1.52 +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html Index: index.html === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.51 retrieving revision 1.52 diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52 --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 - 1.51 +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.52 @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@ table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% trtd bgcolor=#525D76 font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif + a name=That flaming fireball in the sky...strongThat flaming fireball in the sky.../strong/a +/font + /td/tr + trtd +blockquote +p +In a recent a href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=SunInterview;article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's +licensing terms, feel free to contact a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us know what you +think. Thanks. +/p +/blockquote +/p + /td/tr + trtdbr//td/tr +/table +table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% + trtd bgcolor=#525D76 +font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif a name=WelcomestrongWelcome/strong/a /font /td/tr 1.21 +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml Index: index.xml === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.20 retrieving revision 1.21 diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21 --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 - 1.20 +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.21 @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@ body +section name=That flaming fireball in the sky... +p +In a recent a +href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=SunInterview; +article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p + +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p + +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's +licensing terms, feel free to contact a +href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us know what you +think. Thanks. +/p + +/section + section name=Welcome !-- ApacheCon is over. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
Why is that? -Original Message- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news and status page. -Ted. Original Message Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta WebSite CVS List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jon 02/01/30 13:53:04 Modified:docs index.html xdocsindex.xml Log: lets have a little fun. Revision ChangesPath 1.52 +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html Index: index.html === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.51 retrieving revision 1.52 diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52 --- index.html 29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 - 1.51 +++ index.html 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.52 @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@ table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% trtd bgcolor=#525D76 font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif + a name=That flaming fireball in the sky...strongThat flaming fireball in the sky.../strong/a +/font + /td/tr + trtd +blockquote +p +In a recent a href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Sun Interviewarticle/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's +licensing terms, feel free to contact a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us know what you +think. Thanks. +/p +/blockquote +/p + /td/tr + trtdbr//td/tr +/table +table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% + trtd bgcolor=#525D76 +font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif a name=WelcomestrongWelcome/strong/a /font /td/tr 1.21 +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml Index: index.xml === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.20 retrieving revision 1.21 diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21 --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 - 1.20 +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.21 @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@ body +section name=That flaming fireball in the sky... +p +In a recent a +href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su nInterview + +article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p + +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p + +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's +licensing terms, feel free to contact a +href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us know what you +think. Thanks. +/p + +/section + section name=Welcome !-- ApacheCon is over. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
Sometimes I (argh!) love Jon! =;o) Paulo -Original Message- From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:07 PM To: Jakarta General List Subject: RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] Why is that? -Original Message- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news and status page. -Ted. Original Message Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta WebSite CVS List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jon 02/01/30 13:53:04 Modified:docs index.html xdocsindex.xml Log: lets have a little fun. Revision ChangesPath 1.52 +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html Index: index.html === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.51 retrieving revision 1.52 diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52 --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 - 1.51 +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.52 @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@ table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% trtd bgcolor=#525D76 font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif + a name=That flaming fireball in the sky...strongThat flaming fireball in the sky.../strong/a +/font + /td/tr + trtd +blockquote +p +In a recent a href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Sun Interviewarticle/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's +licensing terms, feel free to contact a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us know what you +think. Thanks. +/p +/blockquote +/p + /td/tr + trtdbr//td/tr +/table +table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% + trtd bgcolor=#525D76 +font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif a name=WelcomestrongWelcome/strong/a /font /td/tr 1.21 +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml Index: index.xml === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.20 retrieving revision 1.21 diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21 --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 - 1.20 +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.21 @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@ body +section name=That flaming fireball in the sky... +p +In a recent a +href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su nInterview + +article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p + +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p + +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your
RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it
doesn't give me a clear idea about what we want. Can you give me a
good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect. It just
seems like we should be asking for something and being specific.
-Andy
On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 17:53, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
Sometimes I (argh!) love Jon!
=;o)
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:07 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
Why is that?
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial
matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it
to the news and status page.
-Ted.
Original Message
Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta WebSite CVS List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
Modified:docs index.html
xdocsindex.xml
Log:
lets have a little fun.
Revision ChangesPath
1.52 +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.51
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
--- index.html 29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 - 1.51
+++ index.html 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.52
@@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100%
trtd bgcolor=#525D76
font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif
+ a name=That flaming fireball in the
sky...strongThat
flaming fireball in the sky.../strong/a
+/font
+ /td/tr
+ trtd
+blockquote
+p
+In a recent a
href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Sun
Interviewarticle/a,
Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
+Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
+/p
+p
+The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant
momentum over the
+past two years, and we want to make sure that any open
source efforts
+don't impact the viability of that effort.
+/p
+p
+In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE
licensing
+restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed
it, it does).
+Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the
Java Community
+Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun
to claim that
+they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
+interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
+licensing terms, feel free to contact a
href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us
know what you
+think. Thanks.
+/p
+/blockquote
+/p
+ /td/tr
+ trtdbr//td/tr
+/table
+table border=0
cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100%
+ trtd bgcolor=#525D76
+font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif
a name=WelcomestrongWelcome/strong/a
/font
/td/tr
1.21 +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml
Index: index.xml
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21
--- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 - 1.20
+++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.21
@@ -9,6 +9,34 @@
body
+section name=That flaming fireball in the sky...
+p
+In a recent a
+href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su
nInterview
+
+article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility
and Platform
+Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
+/p
+
+p
+The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant
momentum over the
+past two years, and we want to make sure that any open
source efforts
+don't impact the viability of that effort
RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
I still say we need to say This is what we want not just This is f*cked up. I think we should follow similar rules as to writing a letter of complaint (even if it has a certain Jon/Apache-like flare) -Andy On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 18:01, Scott Sanders wrote: +1. + 1! Why should Apache be silent if the process in NOT open? Publicity is what this needs. C# is more open than the JCP, and that is really, really sad. If we can't express these opinions, who will? I am personally glad that jon is the outspoken person that he is. If he wasn't, would have the balls to publish that??? I cannot guess anyone right off. Scott Sanders -Original Message- From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml] The Java Community Process (JCP) is not a community process at all. It's a way for Sun Inc. to claim they are open. You know it. I know it. Sun knows it. Let's stop deluding ourselves shall we? I say we move that flaming fireball to the home page of *Apache*. -- Ceki At 17:10 30.01.2002 -0500, Ted Husted wrote: I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news and status page. -Ted. Original Message Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta WebSite CVS List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jon 02/01/30 13:53:04 Modified:docs index.html xdocsindex.xml Log: lets have a little fun. Revision ChangesPath 1.52 +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html Index: index.html === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.51 retrieving revision 1.52 diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52 --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 - 1.51 +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.52 @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@ table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% trtd bgcolor=#525D76 font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif + a name=That flaming fireball in the sky...strongThat flaming fireball in the sky.../strong/a +/font + /td/tr + trtd +blockquote +p +In a recent a href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su nInterview article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say: +/p +p +The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts +don't impact the viability of that effort. +/p +p +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does). +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java Community +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim that +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's +licensing terms, feel free to contact a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a and let us know what you +think. Thanks. +/p +/blockquote +/p + /td/tr + trtdbr//td/tr +/table +table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 width=100% + trtd bgcolor=#525D76 +font color=#ff face=arial,helvetica,sanserif a name=WelcomestrongWelcome/strong/a /font /td/tr 1.21 +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml Index: index.xml === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.20 retrieving revision 1.21 diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21 --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 - 1.20 +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 - 1.21 @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@ body +section name=That flaming fireball in the sky... +p +In a recent a +href=http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=S unIntervie +w +article/a, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it doesn't give me a clear idea about what we want. Can you give me a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect. It just seems like we should be asking for something and being specific. -Andy That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows exactly what we want. There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes around here that unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, discussions about opening some of that up (including posting what we want to the public site) are going on now. This is fun. p.s. The spec lead for JSR107 had a nice response to my complaints about the license issues for that JSR. It went something like this: As for the license, I can find no mention of Oracle requesting any money for anything. I seriously doubt if this license is significantly different than licenses for JSP's sponsored by other companies. Uh. Yea. Whatever dude. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:58, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: For starters: I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the rest of the JDK. I think it is - or at least it used to be? The J2EE trademark is protected as much as the Java trademark is - in some ways less in some ways more. Ask Sun whether you can have an opensource java impl and they will say no because we haven't revealed it all. The differenceis that J2EE also has significantly more IP tied up in it that would possibly make it a difficult proposition to cleanly rewrite - though this is the same with some parts of core java classes (ie RMI and friends). In truth J2EE is kind of a scam. It claims to be aiming for compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big of a role in it. They want to have lots of room for proprietary extensions. Its market one thing but actually sell another. Isn't that the best way to advance technology? Leave room for vendors to play and when the vendors have played with a feature long enough, merge the best ideas together and develope a spec. It was a lot worse in past but with auxilliary APIs/JSRs like deployment and management APIs coming out. -- Cheers, Pete --- I would like to take you seriously but to do so would affront your intelligence -William F. Buckley, JR --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
