Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why IBM Open Sourced Cloudscape

Posted by timothy on from the it-just-verbed-right dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A common and a consistent framework for accessing information enables developers to do more things with more people more often. This article shares how Derby fits into IBM's developer strategy, the Java application stack, its intention to drive more innovation around Java on Linux, and why they want to make the Derby database become as ubiquitous as the Apache HTTP server." (Derby is the new name for the project based on the formerly commercial Cloudscape database.)

19 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. All this talk... by swordboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM has been the open source hero for many but why on earth haven't they opened OS2? Are they just going to let it rot?

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:All this talk... by pagal_paanda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yesterday I paid a corporate visit to IBM premises in Bangalore. What surprised me a little was that all their PC's were running XP. Is that me or did I heard from IBM a while back that they would switch to Linux from Windows, atleast internally?

    2. Re:All this talk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sure - IBM would like to do that and there are plans to look at how to do it. It'll take some time to get there though. Until then, Windows XP is the standard IBM client platform.

    3. Re:All this talk... by a_ghostwheel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IBM has not switched internally to Linux. However they do support both Windows XP and Linux on laptops/workstations (true at least for IBM Business Consulting Services) so an employee can request Linux to be installed instead of XP.

  2. Cloudscape, er Derby, is good stuff by YetAnotherName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With more and more small form factor devices that run Java (Sharp Zaurus PDA, HomePod media player, various set top boxes) and even Java processors (aJile, for example), a lightweight database presents some nice application opportunities.

    I've played with Cloudscape before and it's not as speedy as MySQL or as rugged as Oracle, but it does get the job done. And having a relational database right in the set top box or PDA means independence from a more heavy duty machine on the LAN, WiFi, etc.

    Open source is just icing on the cake.

    1. Re:Cloudscape, er Derby, is good stuff by pdamoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about SQLite?
      from IBM's site:
      "it's just a 2-MB .jar file"
      from SQLite site:
      "less than 250KB code space (gcc on i486)"

    2. Re:Cloudscape, er Derby, is good stuff by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SQLite really rocks. But it is what it is, no more.

      The cool thing about newer versions of Cloudscape is that it uses the exact same libraries as DB2 and I believe now supports all of the same datatypes.

      So you can develop some small-scale application and run it on cloudscape, and then migrate it up to a DB2 system as your needs grow with minimal effort.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    3. Re:Cloudscape, er Derby, is good stuff by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not sure Cloudscape actually qualifies as "lightweight". Current Java-capable handheld devices are still pretty limited in what they can run, in many cases you still have to go down to the C/C++ level to truly get the "pedal to the metal". Over time this will correct itself, of course, but for now the choices for data persistence in Java are very limited. Most people I know end up rolling their own solution on top of MIDP's Record Management System.

      Eric
      Eric's J2ME Pages

    4. Re:Cloudscape, er Derby, is good stuff by deltagreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know much about databases, but what I have been told, is that IBM bought Cloudscape, implemented the DB2 datatypes, and then open sourced the whole thing.

      Obviously this was not only to be nice and get goodwill from the open source community, but to have a product that can get a foothold with small businesses instead of e.g. MySQL. The difference is of course that the direct upgrade path from Cloudscape is IBM's own DB2.

  3. compatibility? by geg81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it compatible with gcj and other free Java-like platforms, or does it require Sun's proprietary Java implementation?

    1. Re:compatibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, you _REALLY_ don't know what you are talking about do you?

      Actually, he's got a reasonable point. Yes, in theory it *should* run on any Java, but GCJ isn't 100% there yet. It's coming along, though.

    2. Re:compatibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can write broken, incompatible code in Java, too. Such code runs by pure chance and coincidence on Sun's VM. Use some com.sun.* api, for example, and you can wave good bye to portability.

      For people who believe in Java as a portability silver bullet, it may be suprising how much code in practice does such unportbale things. Otoh, coming from a C background, it's not that suprising: people will write their code to whatever they work with, in general. If it works for them, they'll ship it and ignore the little quirks, workarounds, and ocassional importable code until they are forced to deal with it by crashes, flakyness, and customer complaints. That's just how software development works in practice :)

      While gcj, Kaffe & other runtimes have their share of issues, most of the time, that's what makes running some complex software quite hard on free runtimes: it's full of assumptions outside the scope of the specifications that are specific to some specific version of Sun's VM. And it takes a good deal of time to rewrite such broken, unportable Java code.

      I'm working on fixing OpenOffice, among other things. It could use a good rewrite :)

      cheers,
      dalibor topic

  4. Open OS/2 by ebooher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's time once again boys and girls for my Patented Bullshit Theory of the Day!! All BToD opinions are copyright and drug induced from the unraveling mind of me. They are to be taken lightly and humorously.

    Open Sourcing OS/2? Could be promising, except I seem to remember that OS/2 was a collaborative effort between IBM and our beloved Microsoft. (Note, Sarcasm mistranslate netwise). Due to this much of OS/2 is in NT and much of NT is in OS/2, which is why OS/2 could run Windows 3.1 apps natively without and user intervention. OS/2 had a Win3.1 VM that worked so well Microsoft had to implement Win95/NT 4.0 style API's to break the compatibility.

    So, if my memory is correct (and with this many holes how could it be wrong) IBM simply can't Open the code to OS/2 because they don't own 100% of it. Too much of it has Uncle Bill's own stamp on it and Opening the IBM only code would not produce a working system.

    Also if memory serves, there may be some major HIPAA style agreements in place that would keep it from happening even if the ol' Softie claimed that no code from OS/2 was in the 2K version of the NT kernel and that they didn't care if the whold world saw it. Because OS/2 is used in a lot of back office banking, telecom, and medical solutions. I know that one is true, I worked for a CLEC for a while and a good 80% of the boxes were running OS/2 Warp 4.0.

    So, even though it might be kind of interesting to take a long hard look at the OS/2 code. I don't personally think it would ever happen. Too many legalities and too much legacy in place that still just works to hand keys to something that might enable those less fortunate of us (humans) that feel it's ok to commit grand theft to circumvent the already cheese cloth security surrounding very personal data.

    But all this is circumstantial and delusional and part of my deranged mind, and as such this has been another Bullshit Theory of the Day

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

    --
    "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
  5. vs HSQL? by Joseph+Vigneau · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How does Cloudscape/Derby compare with the other open source Java database engine, HSQL?

    1. Re:vs HSQL? by Java+Ape · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I have the same question. I use HSQL fairly extensively for just the sort of tasks they are recommending Derby for. For those not familiar with HSQL, it's a very small, extremely fast database written in Java. It lacks many of the features of the big boys, but it's bang-up at what it does.

      For large projects I use Oracle or PostgreSQL, but HSQL is ideal for inclusion with programs that need a database distributed with the program. It's easy to use, easy to add to a java program, and works like a charm. Frankly, I don't think it's attracted the attention it deserves.

      I don't know about Derby. It's definately worth taking a look at, but in my opionion it would have to be pretty spectacular to displace HSQL.

  6. This makes sense... by leftCoaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Much like dropping general development for OS/2. Why have your own army developing, marketing and supporting a product (database, OS, et. al.) when you can get someone else to do the heavy lifting then sell services to support it. I thought OS/2 Warp was a fine product with a lot going for it, but I understand that it was costing IBM more than they recovered in revenue from sales. This looks like the same kind of thinking.

  7. Real Database they should have open sourced by FirefoxUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IBM should open source the O2 database that they got when they bought Informix (which bought a couple of other smaller companies that got O2). O2 was a great object database that could handle both Java and C++.

  8. Postgres/Java by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want a JVM for Postgres, or a proxy interface for Postgres queries to relate across to something like Tomcat. I'd like to run an app that populates a Postgres DB with a catalog of entities in Tomcat, then run relations on them in Postgres, with the objects in the app server called transparently. Of course, this wishlist includes an app that replaces all persistent data calls from Java objects in Tomcat to SQL calls on Postgres. That kind of integration would make distributed object development so much faster and less complex (for the app developer), that it could be practiced by many more developers around the world.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  9. Re:"Fair" comparison by iwadasn · · Score: 2, Interesting


    HSQL isn't entirely in memory. It writes a log file, and can have cached tables that are persisted to disk. Even non-cached tables are persisted through the log file. It does however keep all the indices in memory, and is limited to 2 GB of data, those are the real limitations.

    It is faster though, primarily due to in memory indices, etc... For JDBC databases, I'm not sure anything is faster on small datasets, it certainly blew postgres out of the water by at least a full order of magnitude last time I used it, but your mileage may vary.