Sun 'Calls JBoss bluff' on J2EE compliance

joshmccormack writes "According to c|net's news.com Sun has finally responded to JBoss Group's request for J2EE compliance testing. Simon Phipps, Sun's chief technology evangelist stated in the article he thinks JBoss Group is bluffing, that their code won't pass the tests, and that some of the code is just copied from Sun."

Comments

Go get em JBoss!

[ChaoticChaos]

I'm surprised that Sun put any kind of a negative spin at all on this. An Open Source J2EE compliant Container would be a Cruise Missile right into the Microsoft camp. It's un-friggin ridiculous how damn much IBM, et all, wants for a J2EE compliant server. Honestly, it's outrageous for small companies and your partners you want to deploy to. Honestly, I'm surprised IBM charges as much as they do with all the payroll savings they now have from sending jobs over to India. Where are the savings going? ;-)

It'll pass, no problem

[FortKnox]

Those of us that have used the "big 2" webapps (weblogic + websphere) and jboss can tell you that jboss will pass J2EE compliance without any issue.

JBoss isn't necessarily as efficient or as fast as the "big 2", but its always first in adapting new versions of J2EE and JSP. JBoss is always on top of new java technology, and doesn't have the vendor specific code that the "big 2", unfortunately, have.
JBoss is really gaining serious popularity in the Java world. Its really a nice product and is true to the "non-vendor specific code" that other app servers claim to have, but don't.

Re:It'll pass, no problem

[lewp]

I can't see a problem with having helpful vendor specific features if you're clear about the fact that they are vendor specific.

Scenario 1: You want the ability to easily move between servers. You avoid using the vendor specific features of the various servers. Everything works out fine.

Scenario 2: You don't care about moving between servers. You use handy vendor specific feature A and are able to get up and running faster as a result. Again, everything works out fine.

In 99% of cases I'd go for scenario 1, but I certainly wouldn't be pissed to have scenario 2 available to me, just in case.

Sounds like a setup to me

[bmongar]

From the article

However, Phipps said he doubts that JBoss software will pass the compliance test. Basing his opinion on public information, he said, JBoss software does not appear to implement all of the J2EE specification.

Sun should already know if JBoss can pass the test since sun already had the test suite and JBoss is freely avaliable. My guess is they were pouring over the spec next to JBoss with a fine toothed comb to find things that weren't implemented and add the to the suite before it is released.

Re:Sounds like a setup to me

[Tailhook]

Sun should already know if JBoss can pass the test since sun already had the test suite and JBoss is freely avaliable

Sun probably does know. If you were Phipps, would it be better to simply proclaim that JBoss is not compliant and create an Open Source "martyr" or merely suggest it isn't and let the JBoss Group prove you wrong?

Personally I doubt it is actually compliant. The test suite is very thorough and pokes around in obscure areas of the various specs, some of which are ambiguous. The big vendors spend a lot of time massaging their products to comply with the spec with the benefit of the licensed test suit at their disposal. JBoss hasn't had this luxury. They'll need to go through this process before all the light turn green. Don't be surprised if it takes the JBoss Group a year to get there.

I don't blame Sun for withholding certification from JBoss. They have managed to get powerful vendors to sign on to the J2EE platform based on the promise that there is a payoff in terms of licenses. Now that these big vendors have established a credible market for the platform, Sun can let JBoss play and provide a low cost point of entry. Had a "free", certified compliant implementation existed early the big vendors may have thought better of it. Sun now wants JBoss compliant because it makes the platform stronger to have a solid low-cost implementation.

JBoss is not threat to the big J2EE vendors. Implementing a single server side class in J2EE requires writing at least three separate bits of Java code for the home, remote and bean interfaces/classes. There may also be local variants of these to overcome marshalling overhead. XML metadata must also be maintained. This is for a single EJB. If you have many EJBs, you have a very large number of source files and bits of metadata that must be kept in sync. The big commercial vendors sell tools that make this easy. You can do it with vi, but you don't want to. If JBoss is really compliant and really as good as its hype, the vendors will just incorporate it into their own products, just like they did Apache. Their "value add" still remains, because JBoss does little or nothing to relieve the sheer development burden of distributed J2EE development (aside from good dynamic deployment.)

J2EE is now technically credible and supported by real vendors with real products. Now Sun wants to make it cost effective by allowing JBoss to compete after getting its certification ducks in a row. Wise move.

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft??

[ChaoticChaos]

Uhhh, have you heard of .Net? It's popular with many shops because of the lower cost of entrance. The cost of a J2EE Container is a big obstacle for many shops.

Sun/Phipps needs to show more class

[Kefaa]

"I predict that now that we're calling their bluff, they will make up another excuse for not doing the tests," Phipps said.

A comment like this from Sun is unnecessary and appears childish. This kind of remark is unprofessional and serves no purpose except to build animosity.

What will he say if it does pass? If it does not pass, did his comment serve any purpose except to give JBOSS a reason to believe the test was biased?

Re:Sun/Phipps needs to show more class

[sprytel]

Sure it does... remember, its all about perception.

When JBoss doesn't pass (as has been pointed out before... its Sun's test and a free product... so they must already know the outcome), then Sun can say:

"See JBoss is an interesting little diversion, but if you want a REAL J2EE-COMPLIANT APP SERVER, then you need to buy a commercial product."

Undoubtedly, JBoss will fix the areas where they are not compliant. But by the time they do, a new J2EE spec will probably be out, and they won't be able to pass again. Keep in mind that all the major app server vendors define the specs via JCP... so JBoss is necessarily going to always be playing catch up.

Its a pretty smart move by Sun. It keeps them from looking like the bad guy, or "anti-open source", but at the same time serves to marginalize JBoss as a competitor to "legitimate" commercial app servers.

Copied Code?!?

[bokumo]

If Sun thinks the JBoss group copied code, then why don't they prosecute them under copyright law?

Still useful

[mysterious_mark]

Even if it isn't 100% J2EE compliant, it still works as bean container, and is in general easier to use and way less expensive than the commercial alternatives, there are some of us who like to use java based web platforms, but don't have six figures to spend on it. And if it isn't J2EE compliant, this isn't such a big issue if the points of non-compliance are openly known. Viva the OSS MM

Evangelist? More irony?

[cdthompso1]

Isn't it ironic that this guy Phipps' job title is given as "chief technology evangelist" yet he snidely quips that he doubts JBoss, a product that has done much to advance J2EE in the small to mid-size business arena, will even pass the tests?

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft??

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh, his point is that .NET is cheap while J2EE is expensive, and that Sun therefore benefits from the arrival of JBoss.

Bringing up Mono supports his point.

Re:Open Source Question

[Wavicle]

So now please answer why JBoss needs to be compliant other than allowing legacy to run?

Because if JBoss is not compliant, nobody will use it. The fact that it is open source is a really poor argument for not needing standards compliance. Should GCC's cc be non-ANSI C since if you needed it to be ANSI C you could just open up the source and make it conform? The Apache HTTPD server is compliant to the HTTP spec. Tomcat is a reference implementation of a servlet container.

There's an ocean of difference between being able to access the source code and being able to effect changes to that source code. Open source should conform to standards.