Slashdot Mirror
Sun, Jxta And Promises
A reader writes: "There's a publically available article on the WSJ online regarding Sun and the Jxtra launch. But the interesting part is the spin on Jxta as Jini, essentially repackaged. The article also gets into Jxta trying to ride on the coattails of the 'p2p' success. Good article."
I wish Jxta was a repackaging of Jini, because at least Jxta is under the Apache rather than the rediculous SCSL license. All that Jxta provides is unreliable asynchronous messaging (hello UDP?) and at least Jini provides lookup/discovery, leasing, events, and transactions.
1980 - The home computer
1995 - The Internet
Not every new technology is a "push" - I think that your claim that P2P is a fad requires somewhat more justification.
--
--
- What does Jxta let me do that nothing else can do?
I don't know, what does Apache let you do that nothing else can do?- Writing a P2P app isn't rocket science; a freshman CS major can probably do a decent job of it.
Yes, but there are certain disadvantages to having such a "one-off" P2P infrastructure. Working within a framework instead leverages other people's efforts and provides opportunity for cooperation or interoperability between unrelated efforts.A freshman CS major can write a working web server, but but running Apache, I get a framework which offers me access to mod_perl, mod_php and mod_jserv, so I can employ the power of Perl, PHP or Java, respectively. This flexibility and standardization was not an accident but a specific design goal.
I'm not disagreeing about JTXA -- it might fizzle; it's just not as pointless as you depict it.
- When Apache came out, it
... was the first really usable, supported web server.
I suppose that the NCSA web server I'd been running, featuring everything offered by the first Apache release, doesn't count... because, why?- ...frameworks are boring.
... Show me something USING that framework that can't be done with anything else out there, and I'm interested.
While you are reading this (or, I suspect, having it read to you while you stare at the animated GIFs and drool), you are looking at the net result of a framework dubbed "The World Wide Web." Everyone and their grandmother has invented other frameworks that do the same thing. Why don't you do everyone a huge favor and stop using this "boring" framework and go do something interesting, like sitting in a corner and stroking a peice of felt. That seems about your speed.- Jxta (the reason for this thread) does nothing useful at launch, and it solves a problem for which many people already have good solutions. In short, it's going nowhere.
If you're right (I haven't really looked at JTXA to see either way), then I agree.It's amazing how a factual observation can actually advance your point of view. "Frameworks are boring" pegged the meter on the idiot-o-meter.
Now go play with your felt.
- Only the geeks care about the frameworks. This is a point which is often lost on geeks.
This is getting waaay off topic, but I think that geeks are painfully aware that many of the things they care about are only important to them. That's the whole point of Slashdot, fool. It's a forum for exactly the kind of people who are likely to think that frameworks are cool.JTXA may be a non-event in the greater scheme of things, but clearly this forum serves a community of people who tend to find these things newsworthy. You do know what site this is, right?
You overestimate 95% of freshman CS majors.
pooptruck
When Apache came out, it was revolutionary. It was the first really usable, supported web server. That was 1995, the same year that Java was released. 1995 was a big year for the web.
Working within a framework instead leverages other people's efforts and provides opportunity for cooperation or interoperability between unrelated efforts.
Yes, but frameworks are boring. Everyone and their grandmother has built a framework at one time or another. Show me something USING that framework that can't be done with anything else out there, and I'm interested.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Take a look at the Apache web site to get the chronology. NCSA's httpd was the basis for Apache. But httpd was a toy. Apache is a real, enterprise class solution. Apache probably didn't start to take off until httpd's limitations were apparent to everyone. Then the fact that it was free and robust made it the de facto web server.
While you are reading this (or, I suspect, having it read to you while you stare at the animated GIFs and drool), you are looking at the net result of a framework dubbed "The World Wide Web." Everyone and their grandmother has invented other frameworks that do the same thing. Why don't you do everyone a huge favor and stop using this "boring" framework and go do something interesting, like sitting in a corner and stroking a peice of felt. That seems about your speed.
HTML/HTTP are as unique as Java (i.e., it's not). Both are ideas that had been around for a long time, and had been implemented poorly before. But they were in the right place, at the right time, and had very cool things available at their launch to demonstrate their usefulness. Jxta (the reason for this thread) does nothing useful at launch, and it solves a problem for which many people already have good solutions. In short, it's going nowhere.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Sun seems to have forgotten the reason why Java took off. Java was doing something amazing in 1995. There was a tiny program running in a browser, and the same program running on both Windows and Solaris. This was something new. Of course, applets haven't worked so well in non-trivial cases, but it got interest going in Java.
Compare this to Jxta. What does Jxta let me do that nothing else can do? Writing a P2P app isn't rocket science; a freshman CS major can probably do a decent job of it. Maybe if Sun had released the Jxta killer app along with Jxta, it might be more interesting. For now, though, it looks like it's probably going to fizzle out.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
No, as I recall, the license fees for Jini only kicked in when you started selling devices with Jini on them, and then it was only to the tune of $0.10 per device, or a one-time fee of $100,000 or $200,000 for those who would be selling millions of devices. These fees have recently been removed completely.
I don't know about an open source version of Jini, but I do know that there is a vendor that has built an independant version of Jini (http://www.prosyst.com), and another company that built an independant Jini Look-up server. Sun didn't squash those efforts.
I agree with Bill Venners, who was quoted in the article. Sun marketed Jini as an infrastructure that would tie together all sorts of devices. The trouble was, it is still the case that you need a lot of RAM and ROM on a node to host Jini, unless you use some sort of surrogate architecture. With arrival of the Connected Device Configuration (CDC) and the expected arrival of the RMI profile, you soon will be able to host Jini on smaller devices but it still will take 2-3 meg. of memory.
I also think that it is premature to dismiss Jini as a failure. I am seeing more and more products in the pipeline that are using Jini, and it is also seeing more use in enterprise-type applications. Did it take over the world? No. Is it being abandoned by early adopters? Again I think, no.
I think that the above post is yet another reason to not rely on a Slashdot posting for your information. There may be some gems, but the above posting has a pretty low accuracy level.
Java took off in part because it was free. One of the reason JINI flopped so hard, unlike Java, was that it was a technology tied to licensing agreements intended to make Sun money.
They patented key aspects of their discovery and RPC mechanism, and developers I know who wanted to use it in products paid license fees starting in the tens of thousands of $.
Sun even squashed an open source developer trying to distribute a free version of JINI.
JXTA is their attempt to get back mindshare and clout in the agent space, where other P2P groups have left them far behind. Its still insufficient for most interesting applications.
Sun is billing Jxta -- pronounced JUX-tah, as in "juxtapose" . . .
Slightly offtopic, but a legitimate question: why are we seeing companies selling products that have no intuitive pronunciation? C#, Jxta, Gobe (OK, a company name, but still . . .), etc. How do you get someone to order something or even communicate with a sales representative in your standard brick-and-mortar store if nobody knows how to pronounce your product's name?
Remember Jini?
Yeah, P2P is such a worthless fad -- wait, where did all these MP3s on my computer come from?
1997 - Personalization
1998 - Push
1999 - Streaming Media
2000 - WAP
2001 - P2P
Next year it will be the "X Internet". You can safely avoid all of these fads and still enjoy a healthy networked computing experience.
I'm not saying that they should be unpronouncable but they should be made-up trademarkable words (like Corolla, Camry, and Celica, for instance.)
Curious George
***General Consultant to the Human Race*** My opinions are free. You get what you pay for.
My company is involved in the JXTA innitiative, and while JXTA is not much to holler about yet, it is on its way. To have a set of protocols that allow not only groups of peers on a network to communicate, but other networks outside that group to interact, is a HUGE step for not only Peer-to-Peer technology, but for networking as a whole. While the jury is still out on the success of JXTA, it is projects like this that will shape the future of networking as a whole.
Personally, I like it. But it will be up to the JXTA community to make it a reality. So far, their is progress, but still a ton of work to do.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Out of all the people criticising jini/jxta/p2p in general (i.e. most people above), how many of you have actually looked at jxta or read about it?
Did you know that jxta is actually a "protocol" specfication based on xml. Maybe if they called it "pxta" or something without a damn J it wouldnt confuse you.
Java is a nice language to implement jxta (of course) but jxta != java.
jxta is *language independant". Implement it in perl if it turns you on.
Taken straight from jxta.org
Project JXTA addresses the need for an open, generalized protocol that interoperates with any peer on the network including PCs, servers and other connected devices.
Jxta might be a step forward and basing it on xml is a good idea IMHO. Im developing an xml messaging application (using SOAP) so yes Im interested in what jxta has to offer.
It might be a total flop, who knows but don't write off something you haven't even looked at ...
BTW, if any reading this is in the know. Does jxta hope to complement/support SOAP or replace it altogether???