but, they had this pie in the sky idea that EJB would become an enterprise component model for distributed computing. Session beans were designed to be kind of a modern day CORBA implementation, in fact using IIOP as their wire level protocol. Entity beans were designed to be a kind of coarse grained persistent component model. And for 1999, it was a novell concept.
What people ended up trying to do with them is create web applications. Entity beans were used, often poorly, as a general OR mapping system, which is a tough way to go. Session beans were used occasionally for remoting, but mostly for either state tracking or state sharing. Both Entity and Session beans are almost always used locally, hence their introduction of the Home interface.
EJB as an enterprise component model, where applications achieve this SOA style architecture never happened. Internally, IBM product devisions agreed on EJB as a communications platforms for integrating their applications. This never happened.
IBM's push for this made the EJB specification process very political. For example, IIOP was pushed as the wire level protocol so it would support legacy C++ CORBA implementations. However, I don't know of any J2EE application that communicates with a C++ CORBA app over IIOP. I'd love to hear if there are some out there.
I'm not saying I had a better solution at the time, but when it did come out (and I knew several people on the original EJB committee), I felt it would not achieve its goals. My take on it then was XML on the wire, XML as an IDL, with pluggable transports. Yes, even in 1999, some of use were doing this! But, this is basically what we see with SOAP/WSDL. This has turned out to have it's own limiting issues, though.
Personally, I would have provided very minimalist interfaces for a lot of this. Then, I would have allowed someone else to take the arrows. Heck,.NET is only now planning to release a persistence framework, after literally thiking about it for 2 years, and it hasn't seemed to affect their market share. And they took 6 years so far to build WCF (indigo).
In any case, 1 more interesting note. I had the opportunity once to corner some of the J2EE leads and architects at day long private meeting at Sun. Their response was basically apologetic, although the architects were really hung up on JDO. Marketing told us that they have devoted 99% of their efforts to Web Services. Furthermore, we were told that the Java group is being put under the manager who really pushed Solaris to where it is now, and that in time Java/J2EE should being to improve.
I have a lot of interesting Sun/Microsoft stories, actually, but those are for another day:-)
i kinda kicks ass, actually i can't believe they actually added lambda functions to the language! for those of you who know lisp/scheme/xml, you might recognize some of the syntax
and someone even hooked up WMI as a provider. someone else hooked up WinForms as a provider as well:-0
and it sure beats EJB 3.0 Entity Beans
the alpha's a bit buggy though.
it's supposed to RTM with Orcas sometime late this year.
they've attempted man times with much fanfare to unleash some new technology onto the market - usually with a resounding dud (java chips, jini, jxta, java desktop to unseat MS)
their latest concept of utility computing is based on the assumption that the evolution of computing will mirror the evolution of power grids in civilized countries.
their open sourcing of their flagship product, solaris, smacks of desperation, when confronted with the linux/dell threat.
the new java enterprise system seems pretty weak - how many developers do you know who have downloaded the newly openned source code yet?
java as a platform is moving slower than a snail. i met with once with one of the j2ee managers, and his explanation for their slow evolution of java was its 'industrial inertia'. they shipped the J2EE/Java 2 combo before it was complete, and promise backwards compatibility back to Java 1.0, so the platform is being deprived of necessary upgrades in order to maintain compatibility with previous versions.
so, at this point, as sun's market valuation decreases, their relevance does too. they are beginning to take desperate measures, and this may include seeding the market with inferior, but ridiculously cheap technology in order to fend off competition. this is in leiu of high quality technology which requires more time and money than Sun has.
they were backed into a corner, and they failed to find a way out. it's a shame, because they once had the time, money, marketshare to do anything they wanted. they just kept playing the same ridiculous hand.
BTW - recall how Java was created. Jim Gosling was going to quit Sun because he felt they lost their ability to build software, so Scott M. spun off JavaSoft.
yes, but EJB was designed by a committee and turned out to be a complete misfire. that hasn't stopped people from using EJB, though, and for some even liking it - remember that ignorance is bliss
people have used it because they were told that it was the right thing to do however, in doing so, they have suffered serious productivity losses
if you notice,.net does not have an equivalent to EJB - just doesn't exist why is this? IT REALLY IS AN UNNECESSARY TECHNOLOGY! for many reasons.
and if you look at EJB 3.0, it is so completely different than EJB 2.0, it would be hard to compare them
why, you may ask - EJB was done by a committee lead by IBM and Sun, with less than knowledgable engineers. this is NOT a troll - i know this for a fact, have spoken to them, and have heard them admit it was a mistake.
as you can tell, i have an issue with EJB or any crap technology 'standard' that is delivered to the general public as the right thing to do.
i agree, they have few, if any limits. they have no problem selling a customer crap software and drawn out services. their sales techniques are just over the top - kind of disgusting, actually and they really sell themselves as a company that understands business. well, if extracting money from customer's wallets to no end is business, they are indeed there.
"look, our software may break, have horrible UI's, have less functionality than competitors, can be extremely expensive to implement, may have horrible support, but there's more to value than just that. there are relationships, and the fact that we are close with your boss, and your boss's boss, right up through the execs."
and the day the google hive mind computing grid catches a virus formualted by 14 year old Romanian hacker scripting kiddies will be the day it turns into the BEAST OF REVELATION!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
The end is near children - you have been warned!
forgive my grammar - the google toolbar doesn't have grammar check yet;-)
i've read the MS research developed a static analysis tool to detect dependencies among DLL's.
apparently, it can only get about 75% or so of them.
they used this tool on vista's 5000+ dll's and discovered, low and behold, that they are essentially 1 big binary.
the transitive closure over 'dependency' of the dll's = the set of dll's.
in any case - that's their problem.
however, that seems pretty simply compared to anything else you might possibly do in C.
and god forbid what you do in the case of concurrency!
if you guys can pull it off, i'd love to see it!
got any source code available?
awe, common - i run my satellites on windows 2003 sp1 with no problem at all.
and this is all conveniently plugged into 'my satellites' accessible from the start menu.
it all works just fine, as long as i don't play any high end video during my sat uploads
although, that spyware really messed up my telemetry, but microsoft anti-spyware got it off!
i only have to reboot the satellites once per month now!
it only showed up as a 'standard' after it was implemented within star office
essentially, vendors drove this as a standard once they implemented it within their product
i agree, but i am referring to some kind of mass market solution, where if you post your site in XAML, then you know that 95% of the users on the internet can use it.
and there are tons of tools, and associated programming paradigms (e.g. WCF).
last time i checked, most of linux and its accompanying OSS was written in the C programming language.
are they proposing building a 'i think know what you meant' version on lint or something?
if they can do this, then they deserve the wolf prize, and the nobel prize and some new prize.
kind of reminds me of a project i saw (run by an standard cs grad-student no less), to automatically convert C libraries into web services.
they got a little bit stuck when the moved passed integers and had to deal with pointers
$1.2 Million doesn't seem like a whole lot, I hate to say.
Yes, it is a statement that DHS is supporting open source, but that's about it.
That represents like.01% of the investment behind Vista, and probably.05% of the investment behind security in Vista.
In any case, I hope they spend it well.
Considering that about 50% of the money going to Stanford goes to 'overhead', that leaves enough for about 3 FT programmers over the 3 year period.
3 FT programmers over 3 years (maybe 4 if you get them cheap), is a literal drop in the bucket.
Again, MS spends more on MSDN Channel 9 than this.
so google is into this montage software bundle concept now?
this is something i would expect from real networks - bundling every useless annoying free program ever made into their distribution, so it takes weeks to get it all off.
not to say that everything in their bundle is garbage, but come on!
this is soooo unimpressive.
Open Office is inferior, unproven tech, with a list of failed large scale implementations. ODF is a tool used by MS competitors to try to win marketshare in the guise of OSS. And yeah, the UN is an aweful model for government IT - IMHO.
since when should 1 potential loon have the ability to change the direction of an entire state's IT strategy and budget.
the fact that he didn't forsee the accessibility issue is a strong indication that he didn't think this thing through.
furthermore, his statement that he wants to transform the state's IT dept from a 'tower of babel to a united nations' is a clear indication that this guy is off base.
everyone knows the UN is a corrupt, socialist organization whose primary goal is its own survival.
in any case - this guy is no hero - sorry ODF fan boys
the biggest change i expect from this whole situation is not a conversion to ODF, but changes in policy for state IT management.
states will most likely put checks and balances into place to prevent slapshot decisions such as peter quinn's.
Slashdot Mirror
a bit harsh, probably.
.NET is only now planning to release a persistence framework, after literally thiking about it for 2 years, and it hasn't seemed to affect their market share.
:-)
but, they had this pie in the sky idea that EJB would become an enterprise component model for distributed computing.
Session beans were designed to be kind of a modern day CORBA implementation, in fact using IIOP as their wire level protocol.
Entity beans were designed to be a kind of coarse grained persistent component model.
And for 1999, it was a novell concept.
What people ended up trying to do with them is create web applications.
Entity beans were used, often poorly, as a general OR mapping system, which is a tough way to go.
Session beans were used occasionally for remoting, but mostly for either state tracking or state sharing.
Both Entity and Session beans are almost always used locally, hence their introduction of the Home interface.
EJB as an enterprise component model, where applications achieve this SOA style architecture never happened.
Internally, IBM product devisions agreed on EJB as a communications platforms for integrating their applications. This never happened.
IBM's push for this made the EJB specification process very political.
For example, IIOP was pushed as the wire level protocol so it would support legacy C++ CORBA implementations. However, I don't know of any J2EE application that communicates with a C++ CORBA app over IIOP. I'd love to hear if there are some out there.
I'm not saying I had a better solution at the time, but when it did come out (and I knew several people on the original EJB committee), I felt it would not achieve its goals.
My take on it then was XML on the wire, XML as an IDL, with pluggable transports. Yes, even in 1999, some of use were doing this!
But, this is basically what we see with SOAP/WSDL.
This has turned out to have it's own limiting issues, though.
Personally, I would have provided very minimalist interfaces for a lot of this. Then, I would have allowed someone else to take the arrows.
Heck,
And they took 6 years so far to build WCF (indigo).
In any case, 1 more interesting note.
I had the opportunity once to corner some of the J2EE leads and architects at day long private meeting at Sun.
Their response was basically apologetic, although the architects were really hung up on JDO. Marketing told us that they have devoted 99% of their efforts to Web Services.
Furthermore, we were told that the Java group is being put under the manager who really pushed Solaris to where it is now, and that in time Java/J2EE should being to improve.
I have a lot of interesting Sun/Microsoft stories, actually, but those are for another day
i kinda kicks ass, actually
:-0
i can't believe they actually added lambda functions to the language!
for those of you who know lisp/scheme/xml, you might recognize some of the syntax
and someone even hooked up WMI as a provider.
someone else hooked up WinForms as a provider as well
and it sure beats EJB 3.0 Entity Beans
the alpha's a bit buggy though.
it's supposed to RTM with Orcas sometime late this year.
thanks. i was kind of surpised by that.
kept it mostly factual.
how does one get marked a troll anyway - somebody at slashdot or other readers?
i wouldn't root for sun.
they've attempted man times with much fanfare to unleash some new technology onto the market - usually with a resounding dud (java chips, jini, jxta, java desktop to unseat MS)
their latest concept of utility computing is based on the assumption that the evolution of computing will mirror the evolution of power grids in civilized countries.
their open sourcing of their flagship product, solaris, smacks of desperation, when confronted with the linux/dell threat.
the new java enterprise system seems pretty weak - how many developers do you know who have downloaded the newly openned source code yet?
java as a platform is moving slower than a snail.
i met with once with one of the j2ee managers, and his explanation for their slow evolution of java was its 'industrial inertia'.
they shipped the J2EE/Java 2 combo before it was complete, and promise backwards compatibility back to Java 1.0, so the platform is being deprived of necessary upgrades in order to maintain compatibility with previous versions.
so, at this point, as sun's market valuation decreases, their relevance does too.
they are beginning to take desperate measures, and this may include seeding the market with inferior, but ridiculously cheap technology in order to fend off competition.
this is in leiu of high quality technology which requires more time and money than Sun has.
they were backed into a corner, and they failed to find a way out.
it's a shame, because they once had the time, money, marketshare to do anything they wanted.
they just kept playing the same ridiculous hand.
BTW - recall how Java was created.
Jim Gosling was going to quit Sun because he felt they lost their ability to build software, so Scott M. spun off JavaSoft.
Again, Sun lost it a long time ago.
not a standard organization?
what is oasis?
i know a few people on the oasis committees and they never seemed very standard. in fact, they seemed a bit sub-standard.
i for one am sick of dealing with classpaths and 250 jars inside of jar files inside of war files inside of ear files - catch my drift.
.net has, and something like a GAC.
.net after 6 years of dealing with Sun's bullcrap and i have never looked back.
i'm also sick of J2EE containers with class loaders schemes that are more complicated than my senior year algebraic structures course.
build a linker into java just like
than allow versioning of libraries.
then get rid of checked exceptions so i don't have to do try/catch/wrap/rethrows(or do nothing) in 90% of my J2EE code.
then get rid of stateful, local session beans - how redudant is that???
then find a way to get rid of the 14 million defines i need in my server.xml to specify which implementation of each 'open, standard' interface i need
so, java as a language - it's ok
java as a platform - SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
left java for
yes, but EJB was designed by a committee and turned out to be a complete misfire.
.net does not have an equivalent to EJB - just doesn't exist
that hasn't stopped people from using EJB, though, and for some even liking it - remember that ignorance is bliss
people have used it because they were told that it was the right thing to do
however, in doing so, they have suffered serious productivity losses
if you notice,
why is this? IT REALLY IS AN UNNECESSARY TECHNOLOGY! for many reasons.
and if you look at EJB 3.0, it is so completely different than EJB 2.0, it would be hard to compare them
why, you may ask - EJB was done by a committee lead by IBM and Sun, with less than knowledgable engineers.
this is NOT a troll - i know this for a fact, have spoken to them,
and have heard them admit it was a mistake.
as you can tell, i have an issue with EJB or any crap technology 'standard' that is delivered to the general public as the right thing to do.
i agree, they have few, if any limits.
they have no problem selling a customer crap software and drawn out services.
their sales techniques are just over the top - kind of disgusting, actually
and they really sell themselves as a company that understands business.
well, if extracting money from customer's wallets to no end is business, they are indeed there.
"look, our software may break, have horrible UI's, have less functionality than competitors, can be extremely expensive to implement, may have horrible support, but there's more to value than just that.
there are relationships, and the fact that we are close with your boss, and your boss's boss, right up through the execs."
kid you not, they play this way.
and the day the google hive mind computing grid catches a virus formualted by 14 year old Romanian hacker scripting kiddies will be the day it turns into the BEAST OF REVELATION! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! The end is near children - you have been warned!
forgive my grammar - the google toolbar doesn't have grammar check yet ;-)
i've read the MS research developed a static analysis tool to detect dependencies among DLL's.
apparently, it can only get about 75% or so of them.
they used this tool on vista's 5000+ dll's and discovered, low and behold, that they are essentially 1 big binary.
the transitive closure over 'dependency' of the dll's = the set of dll's.
in any case - that's their problem.
however, that seems pretty simply compared to anything else you might possibly do in C.
and god forbid what you do in the case of concurrency!
if you guys can pull it off, i'd love to see it! got any source code available?
awe, common - i run my satellites on windows 2003 sp1 with no problem at all.
and this is all conveniently plugged into 'my satellites' accessible from the start menu.
it all works just fine, as long as i don't play any high end video during my sat uploads
although, that spyware really messed up my telemetry, but microsoft anti-spyware got it off!
i only have to reboot the satellites once per month now!
if air tight security was the only thing that mattered to a corporation, they'd all be running Solaris on their desktops.
why - applications, integration, managability and lots of products to choose from
we used to kid about our vp of network engineering - his ideal machine was a hardened solaris box, powered off, in a lead safe, with no network card
every business operates with risk - computer security included even CIO's know that
it only showed up as a 'standard' after it was implemented within star office
essentially, vendors drove this as a standard once they implemented it within their product
i agree, but i am referring to some kind of mass market solution, where if you post your site in XAML, then you know that 95% of the users on the internet can use it.
and there are tons of tools, and associated programming paradigms (e.g. WCF).
last time i checked, most of linux and its accompanying OSS was written in the C programming language.
are they proposing building a 'i think know what you meant' version on lint or something?
if they can do this, then they deserve the wolf prize, and the nobel prize and some new prize.
kind of reminds me of a project i saw (run by an standard cs grad-student no less), to automatically convert C libraries into web services.
they got a little bit stuck when the moved passed integers and had to deal with pointers
$1.2 Million doesn't seem like a whole lot, I hate to say. .01% of the investment behind Vista, and probably .05% of the investment behind security in Vista.
Yes, it is a statement that DHS is supporting open source, but that's about it.
That represents like
In any case, I hope they spend it well.
Considering that about 50% of the money going to Stanford goes
to 'overhead', that leaves enough for about 3 FT programmers over the 3 year period.
3 FT programmers over 3 years (maybe 4 if you get them cheap), is a literal drop in the bucket.
Again, MS spends more on MSDN Channel 9 than this.
i second that. i sincerely hope that XAML delivers. html is a blessing and a curse. there must be a better way, though.
so google is into this montage software bundle concept now? this is something i would expect from real networks - bundling every useless annoying free program ever made into their distribution, so it takes weeks to get it all off. not to say that everything in their bundle is garbage, but come on! this is soooo unimpressive.
troll? not!
more like disenting opinion.
Open Office is inferior, unproven tech, with a list of failed large scale implementations.
ODF is a tool used by MS competitors to try to win marketshare in the guise of OSS.
And yeah, the UN is an aweful model for government IT - IMHO.
since when should 1 potential loon have the ability to change the direction of an entire state's IT strategy and budget.
the fact that he didn't forsee the accessibility issue is a strong indication that he didn't think this thing through.
furthermore, his statement that he wants to transform the state's IT dept from a 'tower of babel to a united nations' is a clear indication that this guy is off base.
everyone knows the UN is a corrupt, socialist organization whose primary goal is its own survival. in any case - this guy is no hero - sorry ODF fan boys the biggest change i expect from this whole situation is not a conversion to ODF, but changes in policy for state IT management. states will most likely put checks and balances into place to prevent slapshot decisions such as peter quinn's.