Slashdot Mirror
Sun's Phipps Slams App Engine's Java Support
narramissic writes "Sun Microsystems' chief open source officer, Simon Phipps, said in an April 11 blog post that Google committed a major transgression by only including support for a subset of Java classes in its App Engine development platform. 'Whether you agree with Sun policing it or not, Java compatibility has served us all very well for over a decade,' Phipps wrote. 'That includes being sure as a developer that all core classes are present on all platforms. Creating subsets of the core classes in the Java platform was forbidden for a really good reason, and it's wanton and irresponsible to casually flaunt the rules.' Phipps characterized his remarks as non-official, saying: 'This isn't something I could comment on on Sun's behalf. My personal comments come purely from my long association with Java topics.'"
'Whether you agree with Sun policing it or not, Java compatibility has served us all very well for over a decade,' Phipps wrote. 'That includes being sure as a developer that all core classes are present on all platforms. Creating subsets of the core classes in the Java platform was forbidden for a really good reason, and it's wanton and irresponsible to casually flaunt the rules.'
You mean like Java ME?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
While I agree that google is not Mr. Friendly, I'd be surprised if this particular move is about lock-in. Not because of any belief in google's virtue; but for basic technical reasons.
If you want lock-in, you create a superset of the competitor's platform, or a variant of the platform that behaves differently, then push people to use your proprietary features. Implementing a subset of the competitor's platform just raises the cost of porting to your implementation, and creates no barrier to moving from your implementation to others' implementations.
The java-subset thing seems like a bad idea; and I'd be curious to know why they did it; but I don't see how a platform subset is a good basis for a lock-in strategy.
Subtle yet important difference to me, Microsoft released something that did include the 'full set' plus some but didn't work the same as the specs said it should.
Google simply didn't release a full set.
And where Microsoft pulled their stunt to kill Java, I imagine Google did it for technical reasons (i.e. trying to lock down the sandbox) since they have said they want to add more classes to the list of allowed ones.
The justification is the same as Sun has when it creates a limited profile of Java for a special environment, like Java ME: the demands of a special environment.
Exactly. I can't help thinking that Java might have been a lot more pervasive and standardised by now (not to mention that the CLR probably wouldn't exist) if Sun had been more open with Java licensing years ago.
The CollegeBoard uses a subset of Java in their AP curriculum, and they don't get a complaint?
Hmm...I wonder why they never complained about the limited subset of classes that GWT supports in client-side code.
Because they never said that GWT supports "Java", they said it implements some JRE classes. And like everyone says, Sun is a sore loser for failing to release a usable cloud-computing project.
Maybe if this signature is witty enough, someone will finally love me.
You're right... I guess I didn't really think about where the money would come from. But, if anyone has any really expensive hardware sitting around that isn't flying off the shelf the way it used to, I would think it would be Sun. So, maybe they could put some of it to use building a cloud of their own. I've just always been of the school of thought that if you don't like how something is built, build your own.
That would be their locked-down sandbox. You can accomplish the same thing in vanilla Java with a security manager. (Which for all we know, they did. I haven't tried yet.) If the security manager doesn't allow it, you're not using it. Period, end of story.
You may note that everything Google has locked down is either controlled by the security manager or is simply an API to access a service that they don't provide.
Generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid multithreading/networking/filesystem access in a servlet environment anyway. That's what the container is for. It manages all those little details so you don't have to.
That's not to say that people don't come up with reasonable uses for such services (e.g. Quartz scheduler), so programmers will have to decide whether they prefer to use Google's locked-down environment with its alternative solutions (e.g. Cron) or if they would rather purchase dedicated hosting and handle all the details themselves.
For me, the answer is straightforward. I have one site that would be nice to move over, but I'm not going to. It makes use of services that Google does not provide. Those services are important enough to me to continue paying for dedicated hosting. On the other hand, I'm working on a new site that has far lower requirements. That one is getting installed on Google AppEngine.
So far I haven't found any limitations I can't live with for the new site (as I said, nothing that can't be restricted with a security manager), so I'm pretty happy. I may change my mind after using it more, but until I run into some hard and unexpected limitations, I'm not going to crucify Google for their AppEngine support.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
While I agree that google is not Mr. Friendly, I'd be surprised if this particular move is about lock-in.
It never is. Whenever somebody modifies standard technology to suit themselves, they get accused of trying to create lockin. That's what happened when Phil Katz decided he could redo the ARC format faster and smaller. That's what happened when Anders Hejlsberg decided he couldn't live with Java's limitations. Netscape and HTML. Microsoft and HTML, CP/M, x86....
Lockin does usually occur when people do things in a different way, and the different way ends up being the de facto standard. But that's not why they do them. They do them because developers just plain like to do things their own way.
In the case of Google's "white list" this doesn't even come close to being lockin, because any application that will run on Google's classes will run on "standard Java". Sun's problem is that the reverse isn't true. And I'm not sure that really matters. Unless I've missed something, the missing classes are all legacy cruft that should have been deleted from Java long ago.
So why haven't they been? Lack of will. One Java core engineer told me that Sun got in trouble when they even deprecated an API, never mind removing a whole class. People just don't want to fix up all their legacy code, and Sun was too anxious to monetize Java to stand up to them.
Google has more flexibility, since they don't need for their version of the Java platform to make money anytime soon.
How does using a subset of java 'Lock you in' to google? You can take that implementation and go anywhere that has the full version of java available and install your app there. It will work with some configuration changes.
My guess is Google doesn't allow you to play with threads for performance reasons. The file i.o. is because of the system architecture. You need to write to a filesystem, you have to write to memcache.
As someone who is looking to write an app on the engine, some of their stuff bothers me, but I get why they're doing it. If I ever want to take my ball and go elsewhere, I will always have that ability.
OK, no Swing, no Corba etc. But I cannot see what part is missing for cloud computing (or any other algorithm. The collections classes (even the thread safe ones), all cryptographic stuff etc. The only thing that really seems to be missing is graphics (images). But for most cloud computing needs, this should be sufficient.
Anything else you may be able to import using the classes from the open source JDK anyway. As long as you don't create files etc. of course, thanks to the sandbox. And we're not talking about a release of another JDK or anything like that, in that case it would be a problem not to include the default functionality.
This seems to be a bit of a cheap shot. He should well know that you cannot display any personal opinions that are directly in his line of work, and then claim that they are not the opinions of his employer. Not in his position.
Well sure, If you're re-using a standard library it may have handling for the security exception chain and either fail gracefully or work with limited functionality.
If a JDK class is missing and the library class you want to use references it the code won't even run with an UnsatisfiedLinkError. That is a HUGE difference.
Another case where the library class references a missing JDK class but the use of the library class you're using never touches the forbidden code. In that case you again get a UnsatisfiedLinkError. If the use of the JDK class was just restricted by a security policy you only get the security exception if you actually call the API, a much better alternative.
Whatever Phipps' experience (of which I have no knowledge), he clearly doesn't comprehend Java security. The whole key to safe code in networked environments is the use of security policies. That includes, in addition to "fine grained" access control over OS operations, the ability to restrict access to classes in the classloader mechanism. This is the same stuff that happens whether you're doing applets in a web browser or a servlet in a web application container (including Sun's Glassfish).
I'm not sure what you mean. The complaints seem to indicate that you'll get things such as "NoClassDefFoundError" and the like, rather than the more appropriate "SecurityException". As to which one actually happens, I don't know. The point is that a developer, developing an application for Java, should not have to concern himself whatsoever with NoClassDefFoundErrors when interacting with standard jvm classes. He SHOULD however, be concerned with potentially encountering SecurityExceptions.
My point was that (from a cursory glance) for all of Google's restrictions, the Java spec already defines the proper way to indicate that those features are not available. Given that there is a "right" way to do this, there's very little reason for Google not to do it the right way.
Well, if the error is about code that you will use...
Imagine that you use some 3rd party library that includes code for caching to disk. Since you know you can't write to disk on the AppEngine, you disable caching in the configuration. But the UnsatisfiedLinkError is still there.
I like that better than The Sun Way:
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Following /. tradition, I have not looked at the details, but that won't stop me from commenting here... :)
As someone who has been writing Java since '99, I have to say if even Threads is not supported, it is a big issue.
There is a reason why the Core class are called "Core", every Java library expects the Core classes are there. If we now have a popular Java platform that only have a subset of the Core classes, it will cause a lot of headaches down the road, eventually fragmenting the "Java" platform.
Oliver.
As someone who has been writing Java since '99, I have to say if even Threads is not supported, it is a big issue.
Thread support is also "missing" in Sun's JEE Specification. Concurrency is done by the application server, not by the application. As a developer you just configure the relevant parameters you do not code the the actual threading. I do not know Google's AppEngine (and of course I haven't read TFA) but I guess it will be similar.