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.'"
bahahahaha. Sun? Money?
You've not been here long, eh? :)
-knewter
Seems to me they should put their money where their mouth is...
Sun *DID* put their money where their mouth is. They developed java, then GPL'd it. They bought StarOffice, the GPL'd it.
Google, on the other hand, is an advertising company that is trying to get lock-in, same as Microsoft did with their proprietary java extensions long long ago ...
'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
Grr.
I think Sun is jealous, they have been pushing grid computing for ages and it's been a flop for them. Google is most likely going succeed here, especially with a "good enough" solution which no doubt pisses of Sun/Sun employees (who have a tendency to go for the engineering "ideal" solution which often results in a very nice and extremely pricey product). Witness the container computing stuff, Sun is making a big deal about seismic tests, and Google is quietly deploying hundreds of these things in their data centers. Sun seismic test vs. Google data center tour. I bet for most of us Google's Java AppEngine implementation will be "good enough".
As someone who personally loves the Java platform, I honestly think he's making a mountain out of a molehill. As far as I've been able to tell so far, the Google App Engine supports the Java platform in its entirety, with a few caveats. Those caveats deal with the services Google offers (e.g. no JDBC accessible database) and the sandbox the apps run in (e.g. no network support, no filesystem).
AFAICT, there's nothing stopping me from, say, writing a JDBC access layer for their Data Store. Which means that Google is keeping with the spirit of the platform, and that this is mostly just a misunderstanding.
If you want real problems, try running Java apps on a shared hosting provider sometime. The limitations of those sites will have you shouting praise for what Google is offering.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I realize it's now too late but if it were a few years ago, SUN should have considered changing Java's license to make sure that whoever supports Java, supports it in its entirety.
CLDC, the bastardized, stripped version of Java the Sun blessed and which is still the standard on many phones broke the whole "run anywhere" paradigm.
Still causes us major problems since Sun still supports and condones it despite the fact that almost all systems now could easily support a real Java version.
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 word is flout not flaunt. English is harder than it looks.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
COBOL compatibility has served us all very well for over a decade, and to develop new programming languages is wanton and irresponsible.
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.
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.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/runtime.html#The_Sandbox
So I would say the reasons behind their decision would boil down to "cutting out the stuff that isn't compatible with the model the App Engine uses to run things".
Yeah, this is garbage. Watch the "campfire" videos, a boringly large part of the presentations is given over to how you are not locked in, because AppEngine exposes the standard Java servlet container and database access APIs even though it's based on BigTable which is not a standard database. They show how the guestbook app can be taken right across to run on WebSphere with no code changes. The design of Java on AppEngine is pretty much the opposite of lockin - they've clearly put a lot of effort into ensuring a very, very different underlying system can export the standard Java APIs.
As to why it's a subset, I guess the same logic as applied to the Python implementation which is also a subset - due to the way it works the classes need to be audited for security problems. Some of the Java APIs contain native code which probably has to be rewritten or at least very carefully audited to ensure you can't break out of the sandbox. And some I guess just aren't that useful. But I don't really know the reason.
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.
As far as I have learnt from a few cursory glances at appengine, it does not offer a complete OS environment. It is severely sandboxed, probably as a measure of security. All classes that deal with those non-existing features can either be non-existing, or exception-generating stubs. Google choose for those classes to be non-existent. That is something different than creating this-environment-only classes and functions, like MS did with their corrupted java. But there are prominent links on the appengine homepage to submit your own featers and bugfixes, so maybe all these complainers can contribute patches instead of contributing whine?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
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.
We'd be worried about Microsoft attempting to create an MS-only ghetto that they lock people into
Like .NET?
For most parts, /. seems to be pretty much ignoring what msft is doing these days, as far as server technologies are concerned.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Visual J++ was what we screamed about, and Sun sued Microsoft, and Microsoft backed down and took J++ off the market.
Palm trees and 8
I used to hate Java (and JavaScript) because it took forever to load, turning a screaming fast Internet connection into a rush hour exercise in patience, but they improved that and I started singing the praises of Java and JavaScript. Then I found that even though JavaScript is still good, Java now drives me crazy
You know this already, but Java and Javascript are technologies that are not related to each other in any way, apart from the unfortunate naming. Javascript is as close to C as it is to Java.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Technically, Google's Android is a code derivative of DavlicVM and Apache Harmony. Apache Harmony and DavlicVM can be considered as similar to Java. However, Android is Not a subset of Java.
Some links to articles discussing the topic:
http://www.javaworld.com/community/node/2683
Some information on DavlicVM and Apache Harmony:
http://www.dalvikvm.com/
http://harmony.apache.org/
Each VM/platform has its strengths and purpose. There should be room in the IT industry for Java, Apache Harmony, Google App Engine, .NET, Mono, LLVM, Tamarin, Parrot, and many other VM's with their associated programming languages.
Hope you find this information helpful.
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.
Sun's problem is that they are working up to the general launch of their cloud computing services, and Google AppEngine supporting more than just Python makes it that much harder for any new launch to get traction.
So your blaming Sun for Ciscos ineptitude. I have code written under the 1.0.2 Java SDK that still runs under Java 1.6. There again, unlike Cisco's engineers I understood what portability was, because I was targeting SunOS as well as Windows.
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.
Mmm.
Anybody want a peanut?
If you are developing for the App Engine, does it matter the flavor of the error? If you aren't developing for the App Engine and you are just looking to port something you've already written over, shouldn't you be reading the documentation concerning it first?
Developer-wise, this should be a non-issue. Unless you were expecting things to just plug in directly, coding to match how the App Engine works was a given anyway.
I agree with the others who opine that this is simply sour grapes from someone too late to the race to have a chance at first place.
As far as I'm concerned, Sun (or anyone complicit in their activities re: Java) lost all right to bitch about this once every new version of Java consistently broke backwards compatibility with previous versions.
In some aspects, it is the fundamental deficiency of Java the language. Because all methods are implicitly virtual and all overrides are also implicit, and because override resolution happens at class load time, not at compile time (i.e. if Derived.class derives from Base.class, and both have method void foo(), then Derived.foo will override Base.foo - even if, when Derived.class was compiled, Base.class didn't contain foo yet), you get a specific case of fragile base class problem in Java that's effectively unavoidable.
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.
I did go to Google review the App Engine Java documentation, what there is of it. It's not clear if a class like java.lang.System (which is whitelisted, btw) locked through security policy or simply re-implemented in some crippling way. A bit of a failure to provide clear guidelines on Google's part, but becomes a real development problem because they've already stated their Java doesn't conform. Programmers are left guessing or having to find out through failure what the actual behavior is.
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.
The Right Way:
Google's way:
$ make available
It's not the restrictions, it's the implementation. Normally, existing Java code could just be compiled on the embedded system, and compiler errors would specifically identify security reasons for specific classes/methods/etc being disabled. Google removed the classes entirely, so the developer will just get IDontKnowWTFThatClassIs exceptions instead, which are less informative.
It also contravenes existing standards, sort of like making "dangerous" files invisible to unprivileged users in *NIX (via some sort of arcane black magic, perhaps a modified (munged) shell or something...) instead of just setting appropriate file permissions.
$ make available
Citation needed, please. Here's what Google's documentation about java.lang.System says:
What about this is unreasonable? Where does it say that apps will get ClassNotFoundExceptions? Please stop spreading unsubstantiated FUD.
I like that better than The Sun Way:
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Except you're not going to get compile time errors from the third party library you're using since it is already compiled, you're still stuck with the ugly runtime UnsatisfiedLinkErrors. The JDK has features to support what Google wants to do built in specifically for this case and they really aren't very complicated to use.
Do you know how long does it take to define a profile through the standard specification process ? Joda-time (the replacement for those ugly Calendar and Date apis) has been meant to get included in Java since the beginning of 1.5 but here we are some years later at 1.6.something and still no sign of it. Maybe google will go through the standard process for defining the "Java Cloud Edition" (I don't doubt it) but the thing must be out for developers to play with so clearly there's nothing monopolist here (the thing is in experimental state after all)