JBoss is *not* ready. The single fact that I had to change my code when going from 2.4.3 to 2.4.4 means that there are new bugs with point releases that I have to work around. Granted, I do a lot of heavy transactional-based work and touch much of the container, but with WebSphere, WebLogic or even Orion, I've never had to "fix" my stuff after they've fixed theirs.
Also, JBoss comes bundled with Catalina, Jetty or Tomcat. That's great. Did you know that, up until 2.4.4, the Catalina release wouldn't allow you to change your root context for web applications? You could fix this by maintaining your own source of JBoss, but, when you're trying to manage your own project, the last thing you want to do is manage your own revision control for the application server. They fixed it in 2.4.4, but
Missing little crap like that makes we worried about the *very* complex transactional nature for the EJB's and the upcoming clustering solution. That stuff is hard! Even BEA, with all its time and money, has had a hard time with its clustering/failover implementations.
JBoss' implementation was written up on onjava.com. Want to know their suggested solution? Write your application to not need clustering and use a Cisco load-balancer. That's because their solution doesn't work.
What about the auto-deployer? Don't try to update your EAR or WAR by overwriting the archive if the file's larger than 4MB. JBoss'll undeploy your aplication and fail to redeploy it.because it doesn't know how to wait until the copy operation is over. There's some settings to help alleviate this problem, but it's not perfect. I don't expect it to be from JBoss...I would from BEA, for example.
So, let's think a bit before handing the crown to JBoss. Is it well docuemented, code-wise? Yes. Is it fast? For the most part. Does it behave as advertised? No. Will Marc Fleury make sure JBoss succeeds through sheer will? Yup. Will he step on toes? Yes, don't get in his way (for better or worse).
And when you learn how to use WARs, you'll avoid the servlet registration too.
Jesse
*code generators* are bad for code maintainance
on
Why Develop On Linux?
·
· Score: 2
I think too many people are confusing IDEs with code generators. An "Integrated Development Environment" does not necessarily mean visual programming or code generation. Emacs, with proper modes turned on, is an IDE. Used simply for placing editing/compiling/debugging into one frame, IDEs can be wonderful time savers. I loved MSVC++ for this..who can argue with a debugger that visually allows you to step backwards in code!
I run a Thinkpad 560 (P133) with OpenBSD 2.6. I have had no problems dd'ing an image. I can only guess one of two things: your particular floppy drive had some dirt/corrosion/bad hardware that caused a lot of low level write errors that the driver attempts to correct (if it attempts at all). Or the floppy disk(s) you are using are bad. I have personally run into the situation where floppies I've had for 1-2 years just don't work under Unix floppy writing, but work for Win98 or something like that. I'm starting to think that my entire disk supply (about 400 over the past 7 years) are now at their decay period and I need new ones. Kinda sucks if you ask me. Once I figure out how to build El Torrito bootable CD's, I'll ditch this floppy crap.
Nothing's changed. Theo is as abrasive as they come in terms of developer communication. If you're the sensitive type, you better be damned sure that a bug you're reporting hasn't been mentioned or fixed at anytime, or Theo will be the first to remind you. Humorous? Yeah, if you take it that way. Good way to run a dev project? I don't think so, but it's no worse than the kernel threads of Linux. I've seen instances of "Yeah, I thought about that for about 10 seconds then realized how stupid it was. Of course we're not gonna put X in!" when submissions are made to OpenBSD.
The BSD crew as a whole, from my experience, are a more ornery bunch. They prefer mailing lists to IRC and want bug reports backed up with code checking, and preferrably a proposed fix. Linux guys, on the other hand, seem to be more "newbie" friendly.
Still, it hasn't changed my preference in OS. I run BSD.
My BSD router, server and workstation proudly stand up against my daughter in the open. It's the Win98 box I worry about her messing up. Only thing odd I've had to do is tape over the power switches. The BeerBarn
Doesn't this simply change the rules of the game? Where playing "fair" is simply a matter of trust (as it always has been in real life)? Now, the object, for example, would be to create DodgeBots or movement randomizers (ie the user moves normally, but the computer constantly computes an odd path) to combat the AimBots. Or checks to see if the shot is, for example, rail shot, then you are 200 health suddenly. Back in my Side/Side fighter days, there were all sorts of "ultimate fighting techniques" that some people would learn. A skilled person doing this would be considered in "bad form". So what. Ego was built on doing it in "good form". A real skilled person learned techniques to combat the "cheats". It's all part of the game. As for parallels to real world...the performance vs security issue is prime. You want security AND performance, you wait until the software can give you both and not rely on kludgy solutions (closed security, obfuscated protocols). The BeerBaron
Having recently dived into the waters of OpenBSD, let me assure everyone that it is great, but not airtight as one might think (Although my opinion may be slighted due to the rather bug ridden 2.6, my first distro).
And I will make relative my statement in that I am comparing to the 7 disk Debian install, which gets an OS onto the machine and that's it.
For OBSD I used the single disk, 5 package base install, hoping for something as simple as Debian that is tight and gets me started, but isn't open to the world at boot. While this is mainly true with OBSD, I was surprised to see that sendmail runs by default, and you have no clue by what configuration until you're up.
If you follow the FAQ to the letter in configuring the box, please ignore the following sentence: "Configurations usually start letting everything come and go, and then apply the necessary rules to block offending packets."
AH, but what you can do *after* installtion is what makes OBSD shine. Very few suid programs, forwarding and NAT in the kernel for performance. Read only file systems *by partition*, not just mount. Imagine locking the system down read-only and *nothing* can change that aside from raw reading/writing to the device itself. Certainly lowers/eliminates the damage possible should someone actually get on.
So, to people thinking about the plunge, I will agree with almost every admin in "use the right tool for the job". I have OpenBSD for my firewall, FreeBSD for my programming workstation (needed SMP and USB) and Linux for my game box (HA! ever hear *that*? I need only Quake and Civilization. Own both. I'm satisfied.
Java was specifically designed to be a write once/run everywhere language for embedded hardware controls, most notably home appliances (like coffee makers). It was an afterthought (and a lot of tweaking) that made it a web-transportable language. Even more interesting is the fact that most of the real Java work is done for the server-side.
As for security, a sandbox was meant more to secure the hardware from failing due to software errors...again a situation that arose by mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
JBoss is *not* ready. The single fact that I had to change my code when going from 2.4.3 to 2.4.4 means that there are new bugs with point releases that I have to work around. Granted, I do a lot of heavy transactional-based work and touch much of the container, but with WebSphere, WebLogic or even Orion, I've never had to "fix" my stuff after they've fixed theirs.
Also, JBoss comes bundled with Catalina, Jetty or Tomcat. That's great. Did you know that, up until 2.4.4, the Catalina release wouldn't allow you to change your root context for web applications? You could fix this by maintaining your own source of JBoss, but, when you're trying to manage your own project, the last thing you want to do is manage your own revision control for the application server. They fixed it in 2.4.4, but
Missing little crap like that makes we worried about the *very* complex transactional nature for the EJB's and the upcoming clustering solution. That stuff is hard! Even BEA, with all its time and money, has had a hard time with its clustering/failover implementations.
JBoss' implementation was written up on onjava.com. Want to know their suggested solution? Write your application to not need clustering and use a Cisco load-balancer. That's because their solution doesn't work.
What about the auto-deployer? Don't try to update your EAR or WAR by overwriting the archive if the file's larger than 4MB. JBoss'll undeploy your aplication and fail to redeploy it.because it doesn't know how to wait until the copy operation is over. There's some settings to help alleviate this problem, but it's not perfect. I don't expect it to be from JBoss...I would from BEA, for example.
So, let's think a bit before handing the crown to JBoss. Is it well docuemented, code-wise? Yes. Is it fast? For the most part. Does it behave as advertised? No. Will Marc Fleury make sure JBoss succeeds through sheer will? Yup. Will he step on toes? Yes, don't get in his way (for better or worse).
The Baron
And when you learn how to use WARs, you'll avoid the servlet registration too. Jesse
I think too many people are confusing IDEs with code generators. An "Integrated Development Environment" does not necessarily mean visual programming or code generation. Emacs, with proper modes turned on, is an IDE. Used simply for placing editing/compiling/debugging into one frame, IDEs can be wonderful time savers. I loved MSVC++ for this..who can argue with a debugger that visually allows you to step backwards in code!
The BeerBaron
I run a Thinkpad 560 (P133) with OpenBSD 2.6. I have had no problems dd'ing an image. I can only guess one of two things: your particular floppy drive had some dirt/corrosion/bad hardware that caused a lot of low level write errors that the driver attempts to correct (if it attempts at all). Or the floppy disk(s) you are using are bad. I have personally run into the situation where floppies I've had for 1-2 years just don't work under Unix floppy writing, but work for Win98 or something like that. I'm starting to think that my entire disk supply (about 400 over the past 7 years) are now at their decay period and I need new ones. Kinda sucks if you ask me. Once I figure out how to build El Torrito bootable CD's, I'll ditch this floppy crap.
The BeerBaron
Nothing's changed. Theo is as abrasive as they come in terms of developer communication. If you're the sensitive type, you better be damned sure that a bug you're reporting hasn't been mentioned or fixed at anytime, or Theo will be the first to remind you. Humorous? Yeah, if you take it that way. Good way to run a dev project? I don't think so, but it's no worse than the kernel threads of Linux. I've seen instances of "Yeah, I thought about that for about 10 seconds then realized how stupid it was. Of course we're not gonna put X in!" when submissions are made to OpenBSD.
The BSD crew as a whole, from my experience, are a more ornery bunch. They prefer mailing lists to IRC and want bug reports backed up with code checking, and preferrably a proposed fix. Linux guys, on the other hand, seem to be more "newbie" friendly.
Still, it hasn't changed my preference in OS. I run BSD.
The BeerBaorn
Back in my IBM days (95-98) we had a little joke about IBM's marketing vs Microsoft's:
Microsoft could sell vacations to hell even if preliminary reports came back that the first vacationers never came back.
IBM, on the other hand, could try to give free passes to heaven and would somehow wind up offering 1 for 1 conversions to Microsoft's Hell Getaway.
The BeerBaron
You can download the compiler from msdn. It's the IDE and all the RAD development tools that cost a lot. And don't forget cygwin The BeerBaron
My BSD router, server and workstation proudly stand up against my daughter in the open. It's the Win98 box I worry about her messing up. Only thing odd I've had to do is tape over the power switches. The BeerBarn
Depends if your country has an extradition treaty with the US. No treaty, you're safe...until your local government decides to prosecute. Jesse
Doesn't this simply change the rules of the game? Where playing "fair" is simply a matter of trust (as it always has been in real life)? Now, the object, for example, would be to create DodgeBots or movement randomizers (ie the user moves normally, but the computer constantly computes an odd path) to combat the AimBots. Or checks to see if the shot is, for example, rail shot, then you are 200 health suddenly. Back in my Side/Side fighter days, there were all sorts of "ultimate fighting techniques" that some people would learn. A skilled person doing this would be considered in "bad form". So what. Ego was built on doing it in "good form". A real skilled person learned techniques to combat the "cheats". It's all part of the game. As for parallels to real world...the performance vs security issue is prime. You want security AND performance, you wait until the software can give you both and not rely on kludgy solutions (closed security, obfuscated protocols). The BeerBaron
Having recently dived into the waters of OpenBSD, let me assure everyone that it is great, but not airtight as one might think (Although my opinion may be slighted due to the rather bug ridden 2.6, my first distro).
And I will make relative my statement in that I am comparing to the 7 disk Debian install, which gets an OS onto the machine and that's it.
For OBSD
I used the single disk, 5 package base install, hoping for something as simple as Debian that is tight and gets me started, but isn't open to the world at boot. While this is mainly true with OBSD, I was surprised to see that sendmail runs by default, and you have no clue by what configuration until you're up.
If you follow the FAQ to the letter in configuring the box, please ignore the following sentence:
"Configurations usually start letting everything come and go, and then apply the necessary rules to block offending packets."
AH, but what you can do *after* installtion is what makes OBSD shine. Very few suid programs, forwarding and NAT in the kernel for performance. Read only file systems *by partition*, not just mount. Imagine locking the system down read-only and *nothing* can change that aside from raw reading/writing to the device itself. Certainly lowers/eliminates the damage possible should someone actually get on.
So, to people thinking about the plunge, I will agree with almost every admin in "use the right tool for the job". I have OpenBSD for my firewall, FreeBSD for my programming workstation (needed SMP and USB) and Linux for my game box (HA! ever hear *that*? I need only Quake and Civilization. Own both. I'm satisfied.
The BeerBaron
Guess you better stop visiting a lot web sites that use servlets. BeerBaron (urp!)
Java was specifically designed to be a write once/run everywhere language for embedded hardware controls, most notably home appliances (like coffee makers). It was an afterthought (and a lot of tweaking) that made it a web-transportable language. Even more interesting is the fact that most of the real Java work is done for the server-side.
As for security, a sandbox was meant more to secure the hardware from failing due to software errors...again a situation that arose by mistake.
Jesse
I'm amazed that so many geeks passed this by without knowning that most of Toyota's car names are latin-ized Japanese words. Jesse
BTW, it means "Crown" in Japanese Jesse