I'm sorry I wasn't really using the correct terminology. I was talking about using Corba valuetypes to transmit the information. By using valuetypes you can transmit structured information across the wire. The metadata is contained in the IDL, which is a major space savings: the metadata exists on either side of the network and is never transmitted over the wire. In XML a large amount of information that is being transmitted is just metadata. I never noticed padding to be an issue with this kind of system.
If you go with a "pure valuetypes" system then you can easily change your system one that passes datums around to one that is fully distributed.
What I would like to know is why the OP insists on using XML in the first place if he isn't doing any kind of integration with legacy/third-party systems.
So, you control the both ends of the communication so you can implement any compression scheme you want? Why not choose IIOP (The Corba protocol)? I bet IIOP would give you the compression that you want because it is a very efficient protocol. It is also widely supported (many ORB vendors for various programming languages, and Java 2 Standard Edition even comes with a free one).
Well, XML requires processors to preserve spaces by default, but there is allowance in the spec for stripping whitespace-only text nodes (that is, spaces that are between two tags) for some/all content.
Well, I know we got a quote on the Oracle database that was $100,000 for one Dual-PIII Windows NT server. iFS requires a license for the Oracle database, but I don't think it requires a seperate license as well.
It is true that $100,000 isn't that much if you are just going to implement the same thing anyway. My statement about it being a hard sell was more a reference to this line of thinking, which I don't particularly agree with: "every operating system comes with a file system for free, and most operating systems are (nearly) free, but you want me to pay $XXXXX for only part of an operating system? You are nuts!"
It isn't necessarily Hierarchial. The relationship between a file/folder and its parent folder is obvious. But there is also a relationship between the current contents of the file and the contents as it existed last friday at 1:00pm. There are relationships between the author and the document, the document and the way it was produced, etc, etc.
In particular, you could implement nearly-transparent versioning, process control ("my boss must approve this document before I can publish it on the website"), integrated security, etc. In addition, iFS can do full-text-indexing and many other neat things automatically since those features are built into the Oracle database.
On top of that, it is all done in a platform-independent way, and on some platforms (e.g. Windows) it is even completely integrated.
But I imagine a $100,000+ filesystem must be a hard sell. (Of course, it could cost less or much more than that, depending on the server you install it on).
You are confusing converse and contrapositive when you claim to be contradicting yourself. In fact, there is no contradiction in either of your stateme.ts. Consider:
P: If I get productive work done, then...
Q:...I don't care about Megabyte vs Mebibyte
So you have P -> Q. This is equivilent to ~Q -> ~P (the contrapositive), or: "If I care about Megabyte vs Mebibyte, I don't get any productive work done".
However, given P -> Q, you can't say that ~P -> ~Q ("If I'm not getting any work done, I must care about Megabyte vs. Mebibyte").
So, the first and second statements are consistent with each other and there is no reason for you to have seconds thoughts.
Some people are confusing the Oracle9i Database with the Oracle9i Application Server. I agree that the naming is confusingly similar but they are two very different products. The article refers to Oracle9i Application Server, not the database.
Oracle9i Application Server is basically Apache 1.3 bundled with Orion Application Server and and embedded (yes, embedded!) Oracle database server used for data caching. There are a variety of add-ons included as well, depending on how many tens of thousands of dollars (per processor) one wants to spend.
Also, Larry's term "unbreakable" refers not just to security issues but also availability and scaleability.
If/when HDTV becomes widespread, I would expect that TV companies would advertise in the extra space on one of the sides since the screen would be "wider" (due to the aspect ratio difference).
[Sorry, I don't know the technical terminology for this HDTV stuff].
The only way to really compare is to compare real-life application running on both implementations on the same hardware.
This is a difficult copmarison. First of all, the architecture of a Perl-based application is certainly going to be different than that of a Perl-based one. Furthermore, many vendors have high-performance (sometimes transparent) J2EE add-ons for their application servers. This makes comparisons amongst Java App Servers nearly impossible; you might get great performance on Oracle9iAS do to all the automatic optimizations (e.g. ESI, DBCache,), but the same exactly application might run very poorly on another vendor's product.
There is not a standard benchmark application for J2EE called ECPERF. Perhaps somebody could write a Perl application with the same functionality. Then you could have some head-to-head comparison. You'd probably also have to take a Perl-specific benchmark application and port it over to Java and to validate the ECPERF scores.
Once a server has handled its initial requests there is very little overhead from the JIT compiler because everything has already been compiled. So, as long as you keep good uptime (you don't restart the server), the JIT won't be a factor.
Since almost everything will be compiled to native processor instructions, there is very little VM overhead. I bet the VM overhead is very competitive than the oeverhead of a Perl or PHP interpreter.
There are free applications servers (e.g. Apache Tomcat). There are low-cost Application Servers (e.g. Orion). And there are expensive, but well-supported applications servers (e.g. Websphere, iPlanet). So I don't think absolute software price should be an issue.
I don't have anything bad to say about Apache or PHP or Perl. I'm just trying to reduce the spread of anti-Java FUD.
In a server a great deal of the Java will be translated into native processor instructions for you automatically, as well as doing significant dynamic code optimizations (such as inlining). In addition, you have true database connection pooling and easy access to shared memory between threads. A high end application server will dynamically configure itself into a hybrid multi-process, multi-threaded server and will scale out your application as necessary.
AFAIK, that doesn't happen with PHP or Perl.
Finally, some application servers (e.g. Oracle9i AS) actually use Apache as the web server.
That is one reason you should write it this way:
for (int i = arr.length; i > 1; --i) {... }
Or like this:
int l = arr.length;
for (int i = 0; i < l; ++i) {...}
In fact, I think your post really illustrates why Java is good at multithreading: Java defaults to to being safe but lets you be unsafe if you want. In C++, for comparison, everything is unsafe unless you make it so.
Steve, are you saying that your $40,000 server platform is better than their multi-million dollar platform? I doubt that is true. I think that it is more likely that their developers just didn't know how to effectively use the tools they were given. As an analogy, a Dodge Viper is a fast car but you have to be able to use a stick shift to drive it effectively.
aagain all SOAP does is to fix known incompetence in CORBA.
And, exactly what CORBA "problems" does SOAP fix? I think the only problem with CORBA is that it has a lot of features and practical guidence about effective use of CORBA has been lacking. The fact that Microsoft refused to implement slowed its adoption a lot as well. However, CORBA was and is technilogically sound and I doubt SOAP will ever be anything comparible (and never ever more efficient).
> Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced support
> for , which rocks.
The link tag was good back in the day before XML. But XML is here and there is an inherently better technology: RDF. RDF can do all that can do and much, much more. Besides that, you can embed RDF into any XML document (not just [X]HTML), which isn't the case for the HTML tag. I wish Mozilla had an RDF toolbar.
That said, I'm using the toolbar because that is what is available right now.
My point is that a judge may say "you can transfer your license". However, that does not imply "Microsoft must assist you in the transfer," does it? I'm not sure exactly how law works in these types of situations.
Also, Microsoft is basically going in the direction of a leasing model, where you pay a subscription to use the software. Sure, you may be able to transfer your lease to me, but would that be cheaper than you cancelling your lease and me signing a new lease? Especially when you consider that MS might charge a "transfer" fee (just like an apartment manager can).
Okay so let's look at the business model for the premium service:
Readers don't like advertisements, but having advertisements are the only way that we can give them free content.
As an alternative, we will let them pay us $50 a year and they don't have to look at any ads.
What is the problem? Advertisers prefer to advertise to people that would pay $50 a year. In other words, I wouldn't advertise with Salon.com because I can't reach the readers most willing to buy something from me (the paid subscribers).
As an analogy, where are you more likely to to find a Mercedes salesman networking in real life: in a homeless shelter (full of readers of free salon.com articles) or on a country club golf course (readers with paid salon.com subscriptions)?
I think that MS's software registration will only make you send information over the internet when you change the hardware and/or install the software (i.e. when the buyer tries to install the software on a different computer).
If right to use was declared transferable, MS would be obliged to grant the use of their product to the new licensee.
If courts held that you had the right to transfer the license to your software, what current law would require Microsoft to assist you in ensuring that the buyer of the re-sold license can use the software? In other words, from where did you draw this conclusion?
Even if the courts decide that you may legally transfer your license, it won't matter. For example, Microsoft will have mandatory customer registeration of their software soon. Your software will ensure that you have registered your software and won't run otherwise. The registration process will ensure that only one person can register a given copy. This means that once you register your copy of your software, Microsofy will only let you use the software. You may be able to legally transfer your license to another party, but I believe that Microsoft wouldn't be obligated to ensure the transfered license is effective; that is, they aren't required to make the software work for the purchaser of the re-sold copy.
The legal basis for restrictive EULAs is that you have to make a copy of the software (in your computer's RAM) in order to use it.
I don't buy this. A music CD player has to copy part of a song into memory (mine copies 40 seconds, for example) but you can still sell your old CD's, even in retail used CD stores. I believe that the need to copy the software into memory is just part of the implementation of the mechanics of the device used to "play" the software and doesn't have any bearing on the licensing issues.
Again, on the news, we keep hearing that true Islam does not teach Jihaad but the concept had to come from somewhere, correct? I can't find any unbiased reporting and I don't have a copy of the Quran here with me to check myself. If Jihaad is indeed mentioned in the Quran, what are the circumstances surrounding it and what are the justifications.
I believe it can only be used to fight religious persecution of Muslims. That is, it can only be used in self-defense against aggressors trying to limit people in their practice of Islam.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry I wasn't really using the correct terminology. I was talking about using Corba valuetypes to transmit the information. By using valuetypes you can transmit structured information across the wire. The metadata is contained in the IDL, which is a major space savings: the metadata exists on either side of the network and is never transmitted over the wire. In XML a large amount of information that is being transmitted is just metadata. I never noticed padding to be an issue with this kind of system.
If you go with a "pure valuetypes" system then you can easily change your system one that passes datums around to one that is fully distributed.
What I would like to know is why the OP insists on using XML in the first place if he isn't doing any kind of integration with legacy/third-party systems.
So, you control the both ends of the communication so you can implement any compression scheme you want? Why not choose IIOP (The Corba protocol)? I bet IIOP would give you the compression that you want because it is a very efficient protocol. It is also widely supported (many ORB vendors for various programming languages, and Java 2 Standard Edition even comes with a free one).
Well, XML requires processors to preserve spaces by default, but there is allowance in the spec for stripping whitespace-only text nodes (that is, spaces that are between two tags) for some/all content.
Perhaps people are dying because there is somebody sitting there shocking them to keep them awake?
Well, I know we got a quote on the Oracle database that was $100,000 for one Dual-PIII Windows NT server. iFS requires a license for the Oracle database, but I don't think it requires a seperate license as well.
It is true that $100,000 isn't that much if you are just going to implement the same thing anyway. My statement about it being a hard sell was more a reference to this line of thinking, which I don't particularly agree with: "every operating system comes with a file system for free, and most operating systems are (nearly) free, but you want me to pay $XXXXX for only part of an operating system? You are nuts!"
It isn't necessarily Hierarchial. The relationship between a file/folder and its parent folder is obvious. But there is also a relationship between the current contents of the file and the contents as it existed last friday at 1:00pm. There are relationships between the author and the document, the document and the way it was produced, etc, etc.
You should read about Oracle's Internet File System to see what is possible with their technology.
In particular, you could implement nearly-transparent versioning, process control ("my boss must approve this document before I can publish it on the website"), integrated security, etc. In addition, iFS can do full-text-indexing and many other neat things automatically since those features are built into the Oracle database.
On top of that, it is all done in a platform-independent way, and on some platforms (e.g. Windows) it is even completely integrated.
But I imagine a $100,000+ filesystem must be a hard sell. (Of course, it could cost less or much more than that, depending on the server you install it on).
You are confusing converse and contrapositive when you claim to be contradicting yourself. In fact, there is no contradiction in either of your stateme.ts. Consider:
...I don't care about Megabyte vs Mebibyte
P: If I get productive work done, then...
Q:
So you have P -> Q. This is equivilent to ~Q -> ~P (the contrapositive), or: "If I care about Megabyte vs Mebibyte, I don't get any productive work done".
However, given P -> Q, you can't say that ~P -> ~Q ("If I'm not getting any work done, I must care about Megabyte vs. Mebibyte").
So, the first and second statements are consistent with each other and there is no reason for you to have seconds thoughts.
Happy Gift Day!
Some people are confusing the Oracle9i Database with the Oracle9i Application Server. I agree that the naming is confusingly similar but they are two very different products. The article refers to Oracle9i Application Server, not the database.
Oracle9i Application Server is basically Apache 1.3 bundled with Orion Application Server and and embedded (yes, embedded!) Oracle database server used for data caching. There are a variety of add-ons included as well, depending on how many tens of thousands of dollars (per processor) one wants to spend.
Also, Larry's term "unbreakable" refers not just to security issues but also availability and scaleability.
If/when HDTV becomes widespread, I would expect that TV companies would advertise in the extra space on one of the sides since the screen would be "wider" (due to the aspect ratio difference).
[Sorry, I don't know the technical terminology for this HDTV stuff].
The only way to really compare is to compare real-life application running on both implementations on the same hardware.
This is a difficult copmarison. First of all, the architecture of a Perl-based application is certainly going to be different than that of a Perl-based one. Furthermore, many vendors have high-performance (sometimes transparent) J2EE add-ons for their application servers. This makes comparisons amongst Java App Servers nearly impossible; you might get great performance on Oracle9iAS do to all the automatic optimizations (e.g. ESI, DBCache,), but the same exactly application might run very poorly on another vendor's product.
There is not a standard benchmark application for J2EE called ECPERF. Perhaps somebody could write a Perl application with the same functionality. Then you could have some head-to-head comparison. You'd probably also have to take a Perl-specific benchmark application and port it over to Java and to validate the ECPERF scores.
Once a server has handled its initial requests there is very little overhead from the JIT compiler because everything has already been compiled. So, as long as you keep good uptime (you don't restart the server), the JIT won't be a factor.
Since almost everything will be compiled to native processor instructions, there is very little VM overhead. I bet the VM overhead is very competitive than the oeverhead of a Perl or PHP interpreter.
There are free applications servers (e.g. Apache Tomcat). There are low-cost Application Servers (e.g. Orion). And there are expensive, but well-supported applications servers (e.g. Websphere, iPlanet). So I don't think absolute software price should be an issue.
I don't have anything bad to say about Apache or PHP or Perl. I'm just trying to reduce the spread of anti-Java FUD.
Maybe fast disk I/O is not so necessary seeing that they seem to be doing significant in-memory caching?
In a server a great deal of the Java will be translated into native processor instructions for you automatically, as well as doing significant dynamic code optimizations (such as inlining). In addition, you have true database connection pooling and easy access to shared memory between threads. A high end application server will dynamically configure itself into a hybrid multi-process, multi-threaded server and will scale out your application as necessary.
AFAIK, that doesn't happen with PHP or Perl.
Finally, some application servers (e.g. Oracle9i AS) actually use Apache as the web server.
That is one reason you should write it this way: ... }
...}
for (int i = arr.length; i > 1; --i) {
Or like this:
int l = arr.length;
for (int i = 0; i < l; ++i) {
In fact, I think your post really illustrates why Java is good at multithreading: Java defaults to to being safe but lets you be unsafe if you want. In C++, for comparison, everything is unsafe unless you make it so.
Steve, are you saying that your $40,000 server platform is better than their multi-million dollar platform? I doubt that is true. I think that it is more likely that their developers just didn't know how to effectively use the tools they were given. As an analogy, a Dodge Viper is a fast car but you have to be able to use a stick shift to drive it effectively.
aagain all SOAP does is to fix known incompetence in CORBA.
And, exactly what CORBA "problems" does SOAP fix? I think the only problem with CORBA is that it has a lot of features and practical guidence about effective use of CORBA has been lacking. The fact that Microsoft refused to implement slowed its adoption a lot as well. However, CORBA was and is technilogically sound and I doubt SOAP will ever be anything comparible (and never ever more efficient).
> Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced support
> for , which rocks.
The link tag was good back in the day before XML. But XML is here and there is an inherently better technology: RDF. RDF can do all that can do and much, much more. Besides that, you can embed RDF into any XML document (not just [X]HTML), which isn't the case for the HTML tag. I wish Mozilla had an RDF toolbar.
That said, I'm using the toolbar because that is what is available right now.
My point is that a judge may say "you can transfer your license". However, that does not imply "Microsoft must assist you in the transfer," does it? I'm not sure exactly how law works in these types of situations.
Also, Microsoft is basically going in the direction of a leasing model, where you pay a subscription to use the software. Sure, you may be able to transfer your lease to me, but would that be cheaper than you cancelling your lease and me signing a new lease? Especially when you consider that MS might charge a "transfer" fee (just like an apartment manager can).
What is the problem? Advertisers prefer to advertise to people that would pay $50 a year. In other words, I wouldn't advertise with Salon.com because I can't reach the readers most willing to buy something from me (the paid subscribers).
As an analogy, where are you more likely to to find a Mercedes salesman networking in real life: in a homeless shelter (full of readers of free salon.com articles) or on a country club golf course (readers with paid salon.com subscriptions)?
I think that MS's software registration will only make you send information over the internet when you change the hardware and/or install the software (i.e. when the buyer tries to install the software on a different computer).
If right to use was declared transferable, MS would be obliged to grant the use of their product to the new licensee.
If courts held that you had the right to transfer the license to your software, what current law would require Microsoft to assist you in ensuring that the buyer of the re-sold license can use the software? In other words, from where did you draw this conclusion?
Even if the courts decide that you may legally transfer your license, it won't matter. For example, Microsoft will have mandatory customer registeration of their software soon. Your software will ensure that you have registered your software and won't run otherwise. The registration process will ensure that only one person can register a given copy. This means that once you register your copy of your software, Microsofy will only let you use the software. You may be able to legally transfer your license to another party, but I believe that Microsoft wouldn't be obligated to ensure the transfered license is effective; that is, they aren't required to make the software work for the purchaser of the re-sold copy.
The legal basis for restrictive EULAs is that you have to make a copy of the software (in your computer's RAM) in order to use it.
I don't buy this. A music CD player has to copy part of a song into memory (mine copies 40 seconds, for example) but you can still sell your old CD's, even in retail used CD stores. I believe that the need to copy the software into memory is just part of the implementation of the mechanics of the device used to "play" the software and doesn't have any bearing on the licensing issues.
Again, on the news, we keep hearing that true Islam does not teach Jihaad but the concept had to come from somewhere, correct? I can't find any unbiased reporting and I don't have a copy of the Quran here with me to check myself. If Jihaad is indeed mentioned in the Quran, what are the circumstances surrounding it and what are the justifications. I believe it can only be used to fight religious persecution of Muslims. That is, it can only be used in self-defense against aggressors trying to limit people in their practice of Islam.
The new URL is http://www.dlink.com/products/DigitalHome/Broadban d/di804/