Red Hat Plans Open Source Java

sthiyaga writes "According to a ComputerWire article, Red Hat is in discussions with Sun about launching an open source version of the Java platform. 'There's always been an interest in an open source implementation of Java developed in a clean room that adheres to the Java standards,' Szulik told ComputerWire. 'We're in discussions with Sun. We'd like to do this with their support.'"

Comments

Microsoft learned a tough lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

About making their own Java not built to standards and without Sun's support. It looks like RedHat learned it, too.

Native Java

[buckinm]

Having a open-source version of Java should allow swing to be compiled via GCJ. There would no longer be anything holding natively compiled Java back.

eh, not likely

[m750]

http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/dev elopment/java/story/0,10801,82286,00.html?nas=AM-8 2286 'Should Java be made fully open-source? The problem with open-source is that [victory] goes to volume, and that's evident in the Linux community today where ISVs [independent software vendors] are qualifying to Red Hat and abandoning everyone else. Why? Because Red Hat has volume. If Java were open-source, Microsoft could take it, deliver it as they saw fit and drive a definition of Java that was divergent from the one that the community wanted to be compatible. And to the victor would go the spoils of that nefarious action. '

Good for the web

[narfbot]

I don't use java with mozilla because it's bloaty and not very open source friendly. This it sometimes a pain though, not having it available. And of course there are those java programs I can never try. Having an open source version with Sun's support will improve the current mess.

Somebody make a current open source shockwave plugin!

Isn't it Kaffe?

[Jungle guy]

According to the Kaffe website, it is a "a clean room implementation of the Java virtual machine, plus the associated class libraries needed to provide a Java runtime environment. The Kaffe virtual machine is free software, licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License."

Um, Classpath?

[deblau]

The guys over at GNU are already working on this. The project is called Classpath, it's distributed under a modified GPL so it doesn't contaminate projects it's only linked with, and it's far along already. Most Java 2 classes have been implemented, even though they only claim to be 1.1 compliant.

I don't see the need...

[Cnik70]

As a java programmer, I have never found java to be limited as a closed source language. The overall structure of the language is easily expandable and adaptable enough to fit my daily needs. And by introducing a new non-sun version of java leads to the same problems that M$ had with J++ where 100% pure sun java code is incompatible with other flavors. Sometimes I believe that certain things, especially programming languages, are better left untouched by multiple sources. It strengthens the language when it remains uniform.

Was this Larry Ellison's idea?

[Mannerism]

I wonder how long it would take Oracle to turn an open source JVM into an Oracle product in much the same way as they turned Apache into 9iAS.

Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java

[FatherOfONe]

The issue is that RedHat has made a decision to only ship open source software in their distro. So you won't get the good video drivers or a good JVM.

This could easily be solved if they just shipped Sun's JVM with it, and had the installer agree to the terms.

Personally I would love a separate RedHat CD or DVD that had "NON GPL" software. I then could load stuff like a good JVM, and good video drivers.

Re:Gosling favors Open-Source Java

[MagikSlinger]

Newsflash: Microsoft has gone and made a better Java -- C#, and funnily enough they not only standardized it with recognized standards bodies (which Sun has never done with Java), they've also released their own shared source version and have not at all stood in the way of third parties making their own implementations (dotGNU, Mono, etc).

Newsflash: Microsoft patented the CRL layer, so all those "third parties" could be toast anytime Microsoft finds them "inonvenient".

Re:too little, too late

[f00zbll]

furthermore C# has several useful notions ( delegates, boxed types, attribute annotations,assemblies etc ) not in Java.

Ok, sounds like you bought the whole PR pitch hook line and sinker. I can say from first hand experience C# is not all it's advertised to be. C# has some nice stuff like properties, but several important pieces are seriously hobbled for enterprise class server applications.

1. delegates - sounds great on the surface until you realize that writing a multi-threaded/thread-safe application means all calls have to go through delegate. this means for each call to a application running in a dedicated thread, two threads are used. One is used by the delegate. Not only that, for server applications, what you really want is to have direct access to that thread.
2. assemblies - well recently I experience the same old DLL hell with .NET 1.1 colliding with .NET 1.0. Guess what, there are other critical issues like dynamic loading which do not work as well as Java class loaders. In order to dynamically load/unload assemblies, they have to be loaded in a separate appDomain.
3. attribute annotation - is nice, but it's hardly critical. Not only that, if you work with a bunch of VB guys, they are so far from annotating their code that you'd have a better chance of getting an experience Java programmer to use attribute annotation correctly. I annotate my code aggressively to point out design decisions and their impact down the line. I also include suggestions and ways to modify the code should the functional requirements change.
4. thread management using the default threadpool class is weak. There was an article recently in .NET magazine that covered async request handling. The article showed that IIS 6.0 uses the stock ThreadPool, which means improving performance requires writing your own thread pool library.
5. the caching and default threadpool is really intended as an object cache and isn't well suited to complex multi-threaded applications that manage themselves.
6. currently there is no object persistence application or layer in .NET. At first glance it doesn't seem like a big deal until you need to handle concurrent access to shared data across multiple systems. Say you have 100 clients that need to access a webservice. The webservices is load balanced across n servers. If multiple users modify common data, how do you manage it? Do you lock the table and use pessimistic locking, or do you naively say we allow for delay and don't care? There are third parties providing object persistence layers for .NET.
7. stateful application server does not exist in .NET and MSDN states it doesn't plan on providing the support in the near future. For the next several releases the focus is on improving .NET CLR and performance.
8. session replication across n webservers is not supported natively by IIS. The way it's typically done in IIS is to use database sessions. Tomcat 5 will have session replication built in. There are numerous Java application servers and servlet containers that provide true clustering with fault tolerant sessions.
9. database clustering is not available as a stock option in Sql Server 2000 or Sql Server 64bit. Typically you have to setup Sql server in partitions and manage the data access with ADO.NET or DAL. Normally when Sql Server is setup in a cluster like TPC benchmarks, it's a custom embedded module. Ask any Sql Server DBA is real-time replication works reliably in Sql Server?
10. there is no enterprise class messaging server and won't be until Biztalk reaches it's second or third release. If you don't believe me, try to use MSMQ to handle thousands of message per second with tens of thousands of subscribers. It will take 5-8 years before Biztalk can even get close to IBM MQSeries.

.NET has it's advantage like the XmlTextReader. The default XML parser in Jav