Oracle and the Java Ecosystem

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle and the Java Ecosystem

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 16, 2012 @05:53AM from the a-different-approach dept.

First time accepted submitter twofishy writes "After an undeniably rocky start, which saw high profile resignations from the JCP, including Doug Lea (who remains active in the OpenJDK), and the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle is making significant efforts to re-engage with the wider Java ecosystem, a theme which it talked up at the most recent JavaOne conference. The company is working hard to engage with the Java User Group leaders and Java Champions, membership of the OpenJDK project is growing, and the company is making efforts to reform the Java Community Process to improve transparency. The firm has also published a clear, well-defined Java roadmap toward Java 8 and Java 9."

19 of 157 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

*Yawn* by WildTangent · 2012-01-16 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Talk is cheap.
1. Re:*Yawn* by Grishnakh · 2012-01-16 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Larry Ellison IS the devil. Haven't you seen a photo of him?
2. Re:*Yawn* by pak9rabid · 2012-01-16 13:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ... java is history, so to say.
  No, it's not. And the reason it's not is because it's already entrenched. Hell, just last week it was reported that Java was still the #1 language being used; it's certainly not disappearing anytime soon. Oracle will get it right, or face hundreds of pissed off businesses and governments.
jigsaw by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

seeing what's happening on the modularization front i'm afraid it'll be just like the fiasco with log4j and jdk logging which came afterwards. modularization is what java applications (well, backend servers powering too complex enterprisey-apps) need, and that should be achieved through the means of easy to use osgi tools instead of yet another (sun|oracle) screwup mimicking an "oss standard".
1. Re:jigsaw by randomlogin · 2012-01-16 06:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Modularization is what java applications (well, backend servers powering too complex enterprisey-apps) need, and that should be achieved through the means of easy to use osgi tools instead of yet another (sun|oracle) screwup mimicking an "oss standard".
  I think you're missing one of the main points of Jigsaw - which is modularizing the platform, not the application. This is especially important if Java is to get back into the embedded space, where JavaME and CDC are so antiquated it's just not funny any more. Having a range of well defined platform profiles which span everything from headless embedded devices up to a full enterprise stack (while using the same underlying codebase) would be a major step forward. Personally, I don't care what the implementation details are - the changes aren't going to stop anyone from using OSGi to modularize their applications if they want to.
Oracle matters less thank you'd think by SplashMyBandit · 2012-01-16 06:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Compared to other development platforms (eg. MS C++, C#.NET etc) the influence of Oracle is less important than many people may think. Basically the OpenJDK is more important than Oracle's commerical offering (the successor of the Sun JDK - which is very similar to OpenJDK as they have almost all source code in common). But even if this were not the case the Java 'world' has a lot of alterantives: the IBM JDK, GNU GCJ, Apache Harmony. This means that Oracle can try throw its weight around but it is not as devastating as Microsoft would be in the .NET world. This is one beauty (for end-users/developers) with the Java ecosystem.
1. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 06:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I disagree, OpenJDK (specially for Java 6) has many incompatibilities. Try running Intellij IDEA on it (they don't recommend it), or even some app servers.
2. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by OverlordQ · 2012-01-16 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But even if this were not the case the Java 'world' has a lot of alterantives: the IBM JDK, GNU GCJ, Apache Harmony. [...] This is one beauty (for end-users/developers) with the Java ecosystem.
  Until what you wrote for for one doesn't work on the other. Java likes to say it's cross platform, but there's still lots of implementation specific hangups in the various JREs.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
3. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by 0123456 · 2012-01-16 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Adding unsigned types to the language would add very little value, but it would add at least some value, so I won't argue with that one.
  Not having unsigned types is probably the second dumbest decision in Java's design, after compulsory garbage collection.
  Sure, you can work around it by using larger data types (e.g. short when you really mean byte), but it's a real pain when interoperating with code in other languages.
4. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by Necroman · 2012-01-16 06:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I would recommend against using OpenJDK 6 for anything really. OpenJDK 7 is a bit different though, as it is the official Java SE 7 reference implementation.
  I see OpenJDK 6 as their initial "hey, look at what we're working on", as they tried to completely open source the JDK (they had to re-write at least 4% of the Sun JDK when turning it into OpenJDK). With that re-write, lots of things were probably broken, and testing was required to get them working again. Now that OpenJDK 7 is out, Oracle, IBM and other will be putting their efforts into improving it and making it as complete as possible.
  
  --
  Its not what it is, its something else.
5. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by El_Muerte_TDS · 2012-01-16 07:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Funny thing, we experienced the exact opposite. We have issues with various Oracle JDK6 version on Linux that we don't have with OpenJDK 6 versions. Our application would simply segfault when it reaches the set memory limit (instead of garbage collecting).
6. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by goofy183 · 2012-01-16 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Java has gotos:
  loops: for (int i = 0; i < MAX_I; i++) { for (int j = 0; j < MAX_J; j++) { // do stuff break loops; } }
7. Re:Oracle matters less thank you'd think by Rary · 2012-01-16 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Personally, I think the use of an explicit boolean to flag the "not found" condition makes the code much clearer. That's actually one of the main arguments against unstructured use of GOTO. The code is generally more readable and maintainable if you don't use GOTO. In your Java example, it is quite clear, even without looking at the loop code, that the code after the loop will only execute if the item is not found. This is not clear in the C/C++ example using GOTO, where it is necessary to look at the loop code to understand the code that follows it.
  Obviously this is a simple example, but it does demonstrate how an unstructured jump provides at least a little obfuscation, where a more structured approach provides clarity.
  The Python case just looks odd to me. There's nothing about a loop construct that necessitates an "else" condition. Obviously, I understand what you're doing in that example thanks to the previous two examples, but if I were to just look at the Python code on its own, I'd be at a loss to figure out what the "else" even means. Logically, the "else" should belong to the "if", which would indicate that the string literal would be printed each time that X was not equal to 12 (meaning it prints 10 times). The indentation suggests that it belongs with the "for", but given that "for" is a loop construct, not a conditional construct, what does "else" even mean in that context? It's very bizarre.
  Basically, I can see some (limited) value in the construct, but I disagree with that implementation.
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
I wish ... by Elgonn · 2012-01-16 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

That OpenJDK could just get the lion share of development and mindshare. If LibreOffice can functionally replace OpenOffice there's hope for OpenJDK. Unfortunately LibreOffice had years of a head start on that front (functionally go-oo, etc).
1. Re:I wish ... by AnAirMagic · 2012-01-16 06:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It already is the reference implementation
Oracle matters more thank you'd think by the+computer+guy+nex · 2012-01-16 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would say the majority of Slashdot readers using Java do so in an enterprise environment. The Java Enterprise Edition (JEE) specification is controlled by the JCP, where Oracle has heavy influence. JEE application servers adhere strictly to this spec.
Sounds promising by msobkow · 2012-01-16 06:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Java Community Process, through a series of initiatives lead by chairman Patrick Curran, is aiming to improve its transparency and agility. JSR 348, which is the first in a series of reforms Oracle plans for the JCP, has passed final approval ballot. It represents relatively minor changes, but it is still an important step, requiring that in the future all Expert Groups conduct all of their business in public, using a public mailing-list and a public issue-tracker.
It should be readily apparent from my own open documentation and planning approach for MSS Code Factory and Singularity One just how much I believe openness to be CRITICAL to running a modern technology endeavour. The days of closed door development and the sudden release of new technology products is not only disruptive to the industry and employment, it's a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to someone who believes in the GPL ethos as I do.
Kudos to Oracle for realizing the way they were handling things was going against the principles of the way Sun had originally configured the Java community.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's write once run everywhere with small niggles by coder111 · 2012-01-16 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, unless you are doing something weird, reasonably OK written java app would run under any platform. There might be some small issues, but cross-platform apps with Java are much much much easier to write than cross-platform apps with anything else.

--Coder
Re:Java: Was write once run everywhere ever the ca by goofy183 · 2012-01-16 07:38 · Score: 4, Informative

All depends on what you're doing with it. I work on an enterprise level webapp written 100% in java and we have deployments on Windows, Linux, Solaris and OSX-Server using the EXACT same code base and this is an app with over 1000 classes and 250k+ lines of code.