You don't understand. Other countries are proping up our economy so that they can continue to export like the dickens.
Um, no -- YOU don't understand. The US has the leading economy in the world. To suggest other countries are "proping up our economy" is patently absurd.
A trade deficit measures money that is exchanged for goods. Whether or not it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is impossible to say without knowing what the goods are and whether their net value appreciates faster than the money that was traded. It's a very bad assumption to assume that all goods are simple consumables. Look at it this way -- many, many companies run a net trade deficit as they grow. That's precisely why they sell stock: to raise capital to finance their trade deficit. You build a factory and start selling widgets. It takes a while to pay for the factory, so the company has a net trade deficit, but this doesn't measure the increased value of the company which appreciated in place. What matters is how fast you are creating wealth and how you fare compared to your competitors. The US is quite comfortable on both points and the trade deficit is completely irrelevent. In fact, it probably is a good thing as it indicates we believe we can create wealth faster with goods than by holding our money.
I would worry if we run a trade surplus, because it would mean we were accumulating liquidity faster than we could find profitable places to invest it. Consider a wise real estate investor: does he run a trade surplus or deficit? Provided real estate appreciates faster than money (which it does), he'd WANT to run a deficit.
A contract is not a law, it's an agreement by the parties to be held to rules which are not the law. Contracts are voluntary, so you can't claim that a contract violates your rights to anything, since they are in fact YOUR rights to use or barter with as you see fit. Within some reasonable limits like child labor, prostitution, etc... just about anything goes in a contract. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly recognizes contracts and requires governments to honor them, so NOT enforcing a legitimate contract would be a violation of due process of law. It's hard to say an arbitration clause cannot be part of a legitimate contract, when Congress has passed laws explicitly recognizing that them as enforceable. If you don't want to settle disputes via arbitration, either don't buy the product or don't have disputes -- nobody forces you to get a phone after all. You decide you're better off with it than without it, knowing full well that big telcos will cheat you occasionally out of a few bucks.
I checked, and yep, this opinion was written by Stephan Reinhardt. This will be reversed, I guarantee it.
Just last year in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (US Supreme Court 02/21/2006), SCOTUS ruled (7-1) that it is for an arbitrator to decide whether or not a contract containing an arbitration clause is illegal. In this case Cardegna claimed that Buckeye violated Florida usary laws with a high interest loan. The Florida Supreme Court ruled the arbitration clause was unenforceable because the whole contract was void and with it the arbitration clause. SCOTUS reversed saying that as a matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract. They cited Prima Paint Corp v. Flood & Conklin (1967) where SCOTUS ruled it is up to the arbitrator - not the court - to decide whether the underlying contract was subject to a defense of fraud in the inducement.
The ninth circuit court's jurisdiction is roughly 20% of the US population. The only reason they have more overturned decisions than any of the other circuit courts is because they try way more cases than any other circuit court.
It certainly is true they have more cases, but everybody understands that so they use this fascinating trick called "percentage" when comparing. The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to review, and of these, the 9th Circuit's cases are overturned 30% of the time, which is triple the rate of the 5th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and State Courts who tie for 2nd-4th with 10%. See this citation analyzing the 2003 SCOTUS term. In 2003, the 9th Circuit was responsible for 43%, (10 of 23) of the High Court's unanimous reversals. This pattern is a long term one and is not confined to 2003. In 1997, 27 of the circuit's 28 rulings appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court were reversed, two-thirds of those by a unanimous vote.
The reason for the high overturn rate is that the 9th circuit has a few very liberal judges who are not afraid to take maverick viewpoints that differ from those of other Circuits. For example, 9th Circuit judge Stephan Reinhart is the most overturned active judge. In the decade from the beginning of October 1994 through the end of September 2004, the Supreme Court reversed decisions that Judge Reinhardt authored or joined 53 times (26 unanimously), accounting for more than one-third of the Ninth Circuit cases reversed during that period.
I'm baffled by this question. Under no circumstances would I explain the real answer. Why I left the previous job is "none of your damn business" if you are my prospective new employer. If they ask a question like that, you don't have any obligation to explain. I would give platitudes like "It was time for a change", "I left because of politics", "I am ready for something new", "I need to grow professionally". If they press for details I would say something like "nobody leaves jobs if everything is great".
There are lots of concerns in a web app that aren't there in compiled bytecode app:
1. data/code sharing among pages (number of file read requests, repeated data in every page) 2. incompatibilities among browsers (you rely on GWT for browser compatibility, it's frequently not accounting for some rather unobvious details, then you're screwed). 3. GWT goes against MVC as it follows a more traditional "apps and forms" paradigm, which means you're severaly limited in code reuse and separation of concerns in your app. 4. They provide you with a nice Java debugger to debug your basic application logic, but in the real world you'll need to test your ACTUAL app on ACTUAL browsers and you'll find lots of problems. Good luck debugging those when the error show up in some random place in the midst of some random code bytecode-ish blob.
GWT solves #1. Code up a java object to represent your data and use the GWT RPC mechanism to get instances of it to your GWT app. Write client code in java to use it. Oh, and you can eliminate some or all of the needless page transitions since they are mostly useless. GWT apps look and feel more like rich GUIs.
The amount of effort it takes to solve #2 on your own is one of the biggest strengths of GWT. Please look yourself in the mirror and say your organization is better than Google and the GWT community at understanding browser specific DHTML differneces. If you answered that incorrectly with "sure we are", go back and try again.
Your statment #3 is bizaare. MVC was originally invented for "apps and forms" in traditional GUIs. It's the page flow webapp model that made confused the issue. It means decoupling data access and business logic from data presentation and user interaction, by introducing an intermediate component: the controller. Regardless, GWT works great with MVC. You can use it with Struts2 or SpringMVC just fine. I think GWT greatly **simplifies** MVC in practice because I don't have to do a bunch of redirect/forwarding/setup actions gymnastics that serves no purpose other than to push data I gathered on one page to another. Instead, I get view reuse at the instance level and only send data to or from the controller when it needs to interact with the business services and persistence.
You miss the point again with #4. I suppose everybody that says they support browsers X, Y, and Z must test on those browsers. But at least with GWT, The code *I write* doesn't have case statements in it that switch behavior by browser. I'm spared writing the browser specific tweaks myself, because the Google team does it. The benefit is to development, perhaps not to testing. Testing isn't worse off, either. If there is a problem on one platform and not the others, I always have the same option you do, change my code to work around the bug. I have refactoring support in my java IDE to help me do this. I also have something to help prevent such problems in the first place: I'm using javascript widgets that Google has already tested and says they support to work as advertised on the browsers advertised. If you have actual bugs to talk about, then that's one thing. Otherwise you are just spread FUD without evidence. But to your point, if a bug in GWT itself occurs, you've got Google supporting it. Since GWT is open source with a growing community, you can probably solve bugs the same way you would with anything else: troubleshoot as much as you can and post on forums or mailing lists. My experience is that most open source projects will really help you if you do your due diligence and are responsive. I expect the collective ability of GWT community to understand and navigate around browswer incompatibilities dwarfs that of a typical enterprise webapp shop.
What do you care what the javascript looks like? The whole idea of GWT is that the javascript,html, and CSS (somewhat) are an alternative form of bytecode to compile your java classes to. You "look at" the java code, in an IDE like eclipse with lots of code assist features like syntax checking, completion, problem underlining, quick assist, refactoring, etc..., etc..., etc... .
Part of the value proposition of GWT is that java is easier to maintain than javascript. There are probably a few javascript monkeys out there who don't know much java that don't agree, but most of the javascript (human written) that I see when I do "view source" out on the web is horrible stuff with negative maintainability.
What do you mean "required"? Are you saying this is in your employment contract? What would happen if you just ignored it? I can't imagine much the employer could do if you came in and said "I am going to violate the policy. I'll not be coming to work after Friday. In fact, I'll also be working for another company. If you don't like it, fire me." Unless there are penalties specifically agreed to by you in your employment contract (and why on earth would anyone ever agree to such a contract?), then they have no damages, so even if they sue you and win, I don't see what a court could award them.
I don't really know that many people that are running 64 bit computers, using 64 bit aware operating systems and 64 bit software./i>
I do, except I run a 32-bit firefox that I install by hand because I need a java plugin that works. You have to remove the barriers before people will use it, and once you do remove the barriers, they will come.
I believe that the patent will be granted. The PTO doesn't see this patent as any different than the myriads of other stupid patents they routinely grant. But the only way it might not be granted is if the publicity alerts the bad guys (MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc...) that they need to spin up their lobbiests to affect the PTO. I wish this story had not been run.
Assuming the PTO behaves as it has in the past, this patent will be granted and it will be up to litigation to sort out prior art. It will be up to Alan and Red Hat to pick who they want to attack first. If they pick somebody big, there is a serious danger that they will retaliate against Red Hat. Think about what IBM did to SCO. Every single SCO product has a patent claim infringement case against it.
If Red Hat is smart, they'd work out a deal with a friendly party who is willing to spend the money and litigate against them first. IBM or Novell might be candidates. The idea here would be that the "defendent" would want the courts to reach a common outcome with the plaintiffs and both sides would cooperate insofar as they would force the court to pick between precedents that are favorable to both sides.
Re:The Tiger still seems fresh
on
Java SE 6 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Java 1.5 introduced major syntax enhancements and changes. The three big features of 1.6 are scripting, profiling/debugging, and JIT performance. The nature of these changes makes it much easier to migrate, unless perhaps you had an app that was heavy on BSF (bean scripting framework), in which case you need to migrate.
How important does Fedora perceive virtualization to be? What sorts of things is Fedora doing to be virtualization friendly? Does Fedora talk to VMWare and/or Xen about "stuff". If so, what sort of "stuff"?
What does Fedora think about the GPL version 3 ideas that are floating around? Should we be lobbying congress for protection from DRM evilness or using our assets as barter to negotiate safety from it? What sorts of DRM issues has Fedora already had to deal with and what is the Fedora view of DRM?
What should the top priorities of the linux community be to make linux on the desktop likeable by a wider (non-technical) audience. How can Fedora achieve success with both the tech savy and the "not-so-savy" the way that Mac has.
Q: What can we learn from Apple's recent success with the Mac product line. How does Fedora characterize the reasons for their success. What can Fedora learn from looking at the Mac in terms of user experience. What are the compelling reasons to use linux and Fedora over Mac for a tech savy user. What elements of the "slick" UI should we acknowledge and try to create.
Q: Compare and contrst Fedora and Ubuntu. What does Ubuntu do better that can be used to improve Fedora. What has Fedora already done that is influenced by Ubuntu. What should Ubuntu learn from Fedora. How can Ubuntu and Fedora improve commonality and create synergy in the community.
Some topics that might be in the answer: apt-get vs yum package manager front ends single CD install that also serves as a live distro community based package repositories to extend the base package set configuration GUIs, utilities LSB
Exactly. The open source model is a higher productivity model, so the black hats use it, just like everybody else that produces a lot.
And of course, we have to suffer another dig at the full disclosure doctrine. But the part they left out was how they plan to get the black hats not to share information with each other. Full disclosure just assures that the white hats all have the same information and that the battle is fought on pure technology lines and not on who is better at hiding things (a battle the good guys would lose).
sigh....net is nothing more than a carbon copy of java, optimized for the microsoft OS. The funny thing is that while what you say is true about.net, that it can be targetted by multiple languages, it's kind of funny that you think this is something that.net has a leg up on the competition (java). There are 200 freaking languages that run on the jvm. There are many that are production quality. Microsoft doesn't support Mono on Linux, so every time MS "innovates" (aka copies another feature from java) there will be a delay and a lot of non-working code before Mono catches up. This guarantees that mono on linux will always be crappier than.net on windows.
Sun directly supports java on linux, and existing practice is to deploy new JVM's to linux at the same time as other platforms. The only arguable advantage of mono over java on linux is that it is open source. But even this whithers away when you investigate. Red Hat actually ships with a working open source java implementation called gcj. Just like mono, it lags behind, but it does work. Moveover, just about every new creation in java has an open source reference implementation. The java community has embraced open source. There are very few arenas where I would identify the best-of-breed example as proprietary. If you say "I will use the java JVM, but only open source tools on top of it" you really have not limited yourself much at all. The.net/momo community cannot match this. Sun has announced it intends to release the JVM to open source, and it is just a matter of time until this happens. They really have no choice because of the progress of cleanroom open source JVM's.
There are very few, if any, language feature advantages that.net/mono has over java. Both languages provide nice VM based OO environments. Accordingly, the bottom line is that it all comes down to the size of the body of reusable code. Java wins this with an extra zero at the end. There is so much innovation in the java community that it is exasperating to try to keep up with.
This is interesting. It is a article from April 2000 criticizing netscape for rewriting their browser. I don't think that, with the benefit of hindsight, I can agree with his conclusion. I think he was very short sighted. Firefox is a very good browser and it would not exist if they hadn't done this. Had Netscape continued to code the original code base, their market share decline would have perhaps been a little slower, but it would have been more inevitable. As it stands, six years later, firefox has some momentum because it is techncially superior to IE because of the code rewrite.
Never rewrite working code. Refactor, rewrite subsystems if absolutely necessary.
Those two sentences are polor opposites. The second one is correct, the first one is bunk. It's completely rediculous to say "never rewrite working code" -- by this logic all apps last forever regardless of operations cost and opportunity cost. In this world, all apps would still be Cobol and Fortran.
To the original question -- yes you can rewrite your app. There are three ways to do it A) code the whole thing from scratch in parallel B) cut off functional pieces of your existing app, encapsulate them behind platform independent API's and reachitect the pieces individually to the new platform C) cut off layers of your existing app, change the layer to layer communitcation mechanism
Despite what people here say, there can be advantages to A) because you have the freedom to change the basic architecture. However, option A) is much more risky and more expensive. It really helps to do A if you have good requirements documentation for the existing system. Unfortunately, the development style for option A is very likely to be waterfall since nobody will use it until you turn the existing system off. This makes it's chance of failure and it's cost of failure bigger. It almost always causes strife between the "new" team and the "old" team to do this.
Option B is much easier to mitigate risks, but it will take longer. You will have to refactor the existing platform code in order to support it. The total amount of work is probably more, but it can come in smaller chunks and the cost of a mis-step is not as catastrophic. You'll get some benefits from the new platform sooner and upon completion you'll have a more modular architecture as a bonus.
Option C is like option B but instead of spliting up the refactoring along functional lines it goes by technical lines. How easy or hard this is depends greatly on the extent to which you've respected good OO design in what you have now and have separated the concerns of your app into layers.
A key architectural decision for option B or C is whatt platform independent interface mechanisms to use. Without knowing more about your code, it's impossible to say what the right way to do it is. It depends on what mix of web, GUI, and systems interfaces you have, how you've represented your business and persistence logic.
Option B and C aren't necessarily exclusive.
All of these options incurr short term expense for long term ROI. That kind of situation ALWAYS requires very dynamic management. You need an executive sponsor who can make a business case for why continuing on the existing path doesn't work for the business. You are getting a lot of crap answers here because slashdotters only look at the techncial side of things. In the real world, business drivers are much more likely to control the decision. There is a lot of political heat no matter what route you take, and you will need an executive to shield you from this. If you have weak management you will fail and it will be a disaster on multiple levels.
Why on earth is Sun so obsessed with forking? If they don't do something soon clones like gcj are going to get good enough to run most things, and then the risk of splintering the development community will be very large because people will want to follow an open source java work-alike.
The purpose of a _Company_ is to make a profit. The purpose of a _News_ organization, by definition, is to inform.
Pretty much an erroneous oversimplification on both points.
The purpose of a Company is defined by it's mission statement, and every company is different. Companies do generally engage in trade and need to be profitable over the long term to avoid being forced to no longer exist, but there are many companies, especially start ups that could turn a profit but choose not to because they can achieve their mission statement better by not being profitable (typically by reinvesting their revenue to seek growth). It's also why many companies often divest themselves of profitable products that aren't in line with their core competency.
A company's mission is normally to be "best" at some particular form of trade. The choice of the particular kind of trade narrows the organization's scope away from all things profitable to a particular arena. And it's why there is no inconsistency in a company trying to be a news organization. Some news organizations choose to be companies, some choose to be non-profit organization. Unless you believe that consumers are not willing to pay for actual news, there is no conflict at all between being a company and being a news organization.
Second, the perpose of a news orginazation is to both select, report, and analyze the interesting facts of the day **as defined by their readership**. I'm sure you can go find 100% completely objective verifiable information on farm commodities market happenings that is purely factual data. Is this "informative". Yes, if you care about soybean prices, not in the least if you don't. You disrespect the individuality of other readers if you think the information you find interesting is the one true set of "informative" news content.
Give me a break. Your definition of "informative" is colored by your value judgements about what people "should" be told. There is no objective way to determine to define informative. If you tout NPR, it's because NPR's "informative" news is laced with the left wing agenda of its editors and this matches what you think is important.
Any editorial staff of any part of the press selects which stories are important and which aspects of those stories the listeners should be informated about. Those decisions reflect the inherent bias of the editors. This is true of NPR, Fox, Slashdot, or any other forum. NPR is left leaning, Fox is slightly right leaning, Rush Limbaugh is right leaning, and NBC is somewhat left leaning. These classifications are relative and reflect my personal bias regarding where I think these sources stand with regard to the society as a whole. Where I'm different that you though is that I don't try to pretend that one of them is more "informative" than the other, since I think this is a meaningless term.
All in all -- my reaction to this Slashdot article is that it unjustly criticises wikipedia here.
With the resources and ability to dedicate even a full time team to making sure the Wikipedia article keeps them in a good light, I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest.
I just finished reading the wikipedia article. I don't see any indication that it breaks seriously with the NPOV principle. In fact, I was somewhat surprised by the extent to which the article recognizes the existence of and provides links to strongly negative POV opinions. The section titled "Economic impact studies in the United States" is one example, with citations to several studies that are not flattering to Wal-mart.
In fact, if anything, I think some of the negative points against Wal-mart in the wikipedia article may cross the line for editorial quality. For example, the last bullet point under explaination of Wal-mart's financial success is an unverifiable remark that some have accused the company of time sheet manipulation. If someone is actually claiming that wal mart A) systematically manipulates timecards and B) this manipulation takes place on a scale sufficient to account for the finanical success of WM, then the article leaves me with no way to verify who makes such claims (which are clearly POV claims), let alone to verify the veracity of these claims. That bullet should be removed.
I challenge somebody to site the NPOV and unverifiable sections of this article that are pro WM. If anything, after actually looking at the article, I think the wikipedia editors should be mostly commended for keeping this controversial subject as NPOV as possible. The borderline cases I see in the article are on the anti-WM side.
I suspect that there are so many WM bashers out there that many have lost objectivity when their statements are challenged as POV and unverifiable.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand. Other countries are proping up our economy so that they can continue to export like the dickens.
Um, no -- YOU don't understand. The US has the leading economy in the world. To suggest other countries are "proping up our economy" is patently absurd.
A trade deficit measures money that is exchanged for goods. Whether or not it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is impossible to say without knowing what the goods are and whether their net value appreciates faster than the money that was traded. It's a very bad assumption to assume that all goods are simple consumables. Look at it this way -- many, many companies run a net trade deficit as they grow. That's precisely why they sell stock: to raise capital to finance their trade deficit. You build a factory and start selling widgets. It takes a while to pay for the factory, so the company has a net trade deficit, but this doesn't measure the increased value of the company which appreciated in place. What matters is how fast you are creating wealth and how you fare compared to your competitors. The US is quite comfortable on both points and the trade deficit is completely irrelevent. In fact, it probably is a good thing as it indicates we believe we can create wealth faster with goods than by holding our money.
I would worry if we run a trade surplus, because it would mean we were accumulating liquidity faster than we could find profitable places to invest it. Consider a wise real estate investor: does he run a trade surplus or deficit? Provided real estate appreciates faster than money (which it does), he'd WANT to run a deficit.
A contract is not a law, it's an agreement by the parties to be held to rules which are not the law. Contracts are voluntary, so you can't claim that a contract violates your rights to anything, since they are in fact YOUR rights to use or barter with as you see fit. Within some reasonable limits like child labor, prostitution, etc... just about anything goes in a contract. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly recognizes contracts and requires governments to honor them, so NOT enforcing a legitimate contract would be a violation of due process of law. It's hard to say an arbitration clause cannot be part of a legitimate contract, when Congress has passed laws explicitly recognizing that them as enforceable. If you don't want to settle disputes via arbitration, either don't buy the product or don't have disputes -- nobody forces you to get a phone after all. You decide you're better off with it than without it, knowing full well that big telcos will cheat you occasionally out of a few bucks.
I checked, and yep, this opinion was written by Stephan Reinhardt. This will be reversed, I guarantee it.
Just last year in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (US Supreme Court 02/21/2006), SCOTUS ruled (7-1) that it is for an arbitrator to decide whether or not a contract containing an arbitration clause is illegal. In this case Cardegna claimed that Buckeye violated Florida usary laws with a high interest loan. The Florida Supreme Court ruled the arbitration clause was unenforceable because the whole contract was void and with it the arbitration clause. SCOTUS reversed saying that as a matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract. They cited Prima Paint Corp v. Flood & Conklin (1967) where SCOTUS ruled it is up to the arbitrator - not the court - to decide whether the underlying contract was subject to a defense of fraud in the inducement.
The ninth circuit court's jurisdiction is roughly 20% of the US population. The only reason they have more overturned decisions than any of the other circuit courts is because they try way more cases than any other circuit court.
It certainly is true they have more cases, but everybody understands that so they use this fascinating trick called "percentage" when comparing. The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to review, and of these, the 9th Circuit's cases are overturned 30% of the time, which is triple the rate of the 5th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and State Courts who tie for 2nd-4th with 10%. See this citation analyzing the 2003 SCOTUS term. In 2003, the 9th Circuit was responsible for 43%, (10 of 23) of the High Court's unanimous reversals. This pattern is a long term one and is not confined to 2003. In 1997, 27 of the circuit's 28 rulings appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court were reversed, two-thirds of those by a unanimous vote.
The reason for the high overturn rate is that the 9th circuit has a few very liberal judges who are not afraid to take maverick viewpoints that differ from those of other Circuits. For example, 9th Circuit judge Stephan Reinhart is the most overturned active judge. In the decade from the beginning of October 1994 through the end of September 2004, the Supreme Court reversed decisions that Judge Reinhardt authored or joined 53 times (26 unanimously), accounting for more than one-third of the Ninth Circuit cases reversed during that period.
I'm baffled by this question. Under no circumstances would I explain the real answer. Why I left the previous job is "none of your damn business" if you are my prospective new employer. If they ask a question like that, you don't have any obligation to explain. I would give platitudes like "It was time for a change", "I left because of politics", "I am ready for something new", "I need to grow professionally". If they press for details I would say something like "nobody leaves jobs if everything is great".
There are lots of concerns in a web app that aren't there in compiled bytecode app:
1. data/code sharing among pages (number of file read requests, repeated data in every page)
2. incompatibilities among browsers (you rely on GWT for browser compatibility, it's frequently not accounting for some rather unobvious details, then you're screwed).
3. GWT goes against MVC as it follows a more traditional "apps and forms" paradigm, which means you're severaly limited in code reuse and separation of concerns in your app.
4. They provide you with a nice Java debugger to debug your basic application logic, but in the real world you'll need to test your ACTUAL app on ACTUAL browsers and you'll find lots of problems. Good luck debugging those when the error show up in some random place in the midst of some random code bytecode-ish blob.
GWT solves #1. Code up a java object to represent your data and use the GWT RPC mechanism to get instances of it to your GWT app. Write client code in java to use it. Oh, and you can eliminate some or all of the needless page transitions since they are mostly useless. GWT apps look and feel more like rich GUIs.
The amount of effort it takes to solve #2 on your own is one of the biggest strengths of GWT. Please look yourself in the mirror and say your organization is better than Google and the GWT community at understanding browser specific DHTML differneces. If you answered that incorrectly with "sure we are", go back and try again.
Your statment #3 is bizaare. MVC was originally invented for "apps and forms" in traditional GUIs. It's the page flow webapp model that made confused the issue. It means decoupling data access and business logic from data presentation and user interaction, by introducing an intermediate component: the controller. Regardless, GWT works great with MVC. You can use it with Struts2 or SpringMVC just fine. I think GWT greatly **simplifies** MVC in practice because I don't have to do a bunch of redirect/forwarding/setup actions gymnastics that serves no purpose other than to push data I gathered on one page to another. Instead, I get view reuse at the instance level and only send data to or from the controller when it needs to interact with the business services and persistence.
You miss the point again with #4. I suppose everybody that says they support browsers X, Y, and Z must test on those browsers. But at least with GWT, The code *I write* doesn't have case statements in it that switch behavior by browser. I'm spared writing the browser specific tweaks myself, because the Google team does it. The benefit is to development, perhaps not to testing. Testing isn't worse off, either. If there is a problem on one platform and not the others, I always have the same option you do, change my code to work around the bug. I have refactoring support in my java IDE to help me do this. I also have something to help prevent such problems in the first place: I'm using javascript widgets that Google has already tested and says they support to work as advertised on the browsers advertised. If you have actual bugs to talk about, then that's one thing. Otherwise you are just spread FUD without evidence. But to your point, if a bug in GWT itself occurs, you've got Google supporting it. Since GWT is open source with a growing community, you can probably solve bugs the same way you would with anything else: troubleshoot as much as you can and post on forums or mailing lists. My experience is that most open source projects will really help you if you do your due diligence and are responsive. I expect the collective ability of GWT community to understand and navigate around browswer incompatibilities dwarfs that of a typical enterprise webapp shop.
What do you care what the javascript looks like? The whole idea of GWT is that the javascript,html, and CSS (somewhat) are an alternative form of bytecode to compile your java classes to. You "look at" the java code, in an IDE like eclipse with lots of code assist features like syntax checking, completion, problem underlining, quick assist, refactoring, etc..., etc..., etc... .
Part of the value proposition of GWT is that java is easier to maintain than javascript. There are probably a few javascript monkeys out there who don't know much java that don't agree, but most of the javascript (human written) that I see when I do "view source" out on the web is horrible stuff with negative maintainability.
What do you mean "required"? Are you saying this is in your employment contract? What would happen if you just ignored it? I can't imagine much the employer could do if you came in and said "I am going to violate the policy. I'll not be coming to work after Friday. In fact, I'll also be working for another company. If you don't like it, fire me." Unless there are penalties specifically agreed to by you in your employment contract (and why on earth would anyone ever agree to such a contract?), then they have no damages, so even if they sue you and win, I don't see what a court could award them.
I don't really know that many people that are running 64 bit computers, using 64 bit aware operating systems and 64 bit software./i>
I do, except I run a 32-bit firefox that I install by hand because I need a java plugin that works. You have to remove the barriers before people will use it, and once you do remove the barriers, they will come.
I believe that the patent will be granted. The PTO doesn't see this patent as any different than the myriads of other stupid patents they routinely grant. But the only way it might not be granted is if the publicity alerts the bad guys (MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc...) that they need to spin up their lobbiests to affect the PTO. I wish this story had not been run.
Assuming the PTO behaves as it has in the past, this patent will be granted and it will be up to litigation to sort out prior art. It will be up to Alan and Red Hat to pick who they want to attack first. If they pick somebody big, there is a serious danger that they will retaliate against Red Hat. Think about what IBM did to SCO. Every single SCO product has a patent claim infringement case against it.
If Red Hat is smart, they'd work out a deal with a friendly party who is willing to spend the money and litigate against them first. IBM or Novell might be candidates. The idea here would be that the "defendent" would want the courts to reach a common outcome with the plaintiffs and both sides would cooperate insofar as they would force the court to pick between precedents that are favorable to both sides.
Java 1.5 introduced major syntax enhancements and changes. The three big features of 1.6 are scripting, profiling/debugging, and JIT performance. The nature of these changes makes it much easier to migrate, unless perhaps you had an app that was heavy on BSF (bean scripting framework), in which case you need to migrate.
I wonder how many marriages began with a guy telling lies in a bar to get a girl's phone number only to realize later that he actually likes her.
How important does Fedora perceive virtualization to be? What sorts of things is Fedora doing to be virtualization friendly? Does Fedora talk to VMWare and/or Xen about "stuff". If so, what sort of "stuff"?
What does Fedora think about the GPL version 3 ideas that are floating around? Should we be lobbying congress for protection from DRM evilness or using our assets as barter to negotiate safety from it? What sorts of DRM issues has Fedora already had to deal with and what is the Fedora view of DRM?
What should the top priorities of the linux community be to make linux on the desktop likeable by a wider (non-technical) audience. How can Fedora achieve success with both the tech savy and the "not-so-savy" the way that Mac has.
Q: What can we learn from Apple's recent success with the Mac product line. How does Fedora characterize the reasons for their success. What can Fedora learn from looking at the Mac in terms of user experience. What are the compelling reasons to use linux and Fedora over Mac for a tech savy user. What elements of the "slick" UI should we acknowledge and try to create.
Q: Compare and contrst Fedora and Ubuntu. What does Ubuntu do better that can be used to improve Fedora. What has Fedora already done that is influenced by Ubuntu. What should Ubuntu learn from Fedora. How can Ubuntu and Fedora improve commonality and create synergy in the community.
Some topics that might be in the answer:
apt-get vs yum
package manager front ends
single CD install that also serves as a live distro
community based package repositories to extend the base package set
configuration GUIs, utilities
LSB
Exactly. The open source model is a higher productivity model, so the black hats use it, just like everybody else that produces a lot.
And of course, we have to suffer another dig at the full disclosure doctrine. But the part they left out was how they plan to get the black hats not to share information with each other. Full disclosure just assures that the white hats all have the same information and that the battle is fought on pure technology lines and not on who is better at hiding things (a battle the good guys would lose).
sigh... .net is nothing more than a carbon copy of java, optimized for the microsoft OS. The funny thing is that while what you say is true about .net, that it can be targetted by multiple languages, it's kind of funny that you think this is something that .net has a leg up on the competition (java). There are 200 freaking languages that run on the jvm. There are many that are production quality. Microsoft doesn't support Mono on Linux, so every time MS "innovates" (aka copies another feature from java) there will be a delay and a lot of non-working code before Mono catches up. This guarantees that mono on linux will always be crappier than .net on windows.
.net/momo community cannot match this. Sun has announced it intends to release the JVM to open source, and it is just a matter of time until this happens. They really have no choice because of the progress of cleanroom open source JVM's.
.net/mono has over java. Both languages provide nice VM based OO environments. Accordingly, the bottom line is that it all comes down to the size of the body of reusable code. Java wins this with an extra zero at the end. There is so much innovation in the java community that it is exasperating to try to keep up with.
Sun directly supports java on linux, and existing practice is to deploy new JVM's to linux at the same time as other platforms. The only arguable advantage of mono over java on linux is that it is open source. But even this whithers away when you investigate. Red Hat actually ships with a working open source java implementation called gcj. Just like mono, it lags behind, but it does work. Moveover, just about every new creation in java has an open source reference implementation. The java community has embraced open source. There are very few arenas where I would identify the best-of-breed example as proprietary. If you say "I will use the java JVM, but only open source tools on top of it" you really have not limited yourself much at all. The
There are very few, if any, language feature advantages that
This is interesting. It is a article from April 2000 criticizing netscape for rewriting their browser. I don't think that, with the benefit of hindsight, I can agree with his conclusion. I think he was very short sighted. Firefox is a very good browser and it would not exist if they hadn't done this. Had Netscape continued to code the original code base, their market share decline would have perhaps been a little slower, but it would have been more inevitable. As it stands, six years later, firefox has some momentum because it is techncially superior to IE because of the code rewrite.
Never rewrite working code. Refactor, rewrite subsystems if absolutely necessary.
Those two sentences are polor opposites. The second one is correct, the first one is bunk. It's completely rediculous to say "never rewrite working code" -- by this logic all apps last forever regardless of operations cost and opportunity cost. In this world, all apps would still be Cobol and Fortran.
To the original question -- yes you can rewrite your app. There are three ways to do it
A) code the whole thing from scratch in parallel
B) cut off functional pieces of your existing app, encapsulate them behind platform independent API's and reachitect the pieces individually to the new platform
C) cut off layers of your existing app, change the layer to layer communitcation mechanism
Despite what people here say, there can be advantages to A) because you have the freedom to change the basic architecture. However, option A) is much more risky and more expensive. It really helps to do A if you have good requirements documentation for the existing system. Unfortunately, the development style for option A is very likely to be waterfall since nobody will use it until you turn the existing system off. This makes it's chance of failure and it's cost of failure bigger. It almost always causes strife between the "new" team and the "old" team to do this.
Option B is much easier to mitigate risks, but it will take longer. You will have to refactor the existing platform code in order to support it. The total amount of work is probably more, but it can come in smaller chunks and the cost of a mis-step is not as catastrophic. You'll get some benefits from the new platform sooner and upon completion you'll have a more modular architecture as a bonus.
Option C is like option B but instead of spliting up the refactoring along functional lines it goes by technical lines. How easy or hard this is depends greatly on the extent to which you've respected good OO design in what you have now and have separated the concerns of your app into layers.
A key architectural decision for option B or C is whatt platform independent interface mechanisms to use. Without knowing more about your code, it's impossible to say what the right way to do it is. It depends on what mix of web, GUI, and systems interfaces you have, how you've represented your business and persistence logic.
Option B and C aren't necessarily exclusive.
All of these options incurr short term expense for long term ROI. That kind of situation ALWAYS requires very dynamic management. You need an executive sponsor who can make a business case for why continuing on the existing path doesn't work for the business. You are getting a lot of crap answers here because slashdotters only look at the techncial side of things. In the real world, business drivers are much more likely to control the decision. There is a lot of political heat no matter what route you take, and you will need an executive to shield you from this. If you have weak management you will fail and it will be a disaster on multiple levels.
Why on earth is Sun so obsessed with forking? If they don't do something soon clones like gcj are going to get good enough to run most things, and then the risk of splintering the development community will be very large because people will want to follow an open source java work-alike.
The purpose of a _Company_ is to make a profit. The purpose of a _News_ organization, by definition, is to inform.
Pretty much an erroneous oversimplification on both points.
The purpose of a Company is defined by it's mission statement, and every company is different. Companies do generally engage in trade and need to be profitable over the long term to avoid being forced to no longer exist, but there are many companies, especially start ups that could turn a profit but choose not to because they can achieve their mission statement better by not being profitable (typically by reinvesting their revenue to seek growth). It's also why many companies often divest themselves of profitable products that aren't in line with their core competency.
A company's mission is normally to be "best" at some particular form of trade. The choice of the particular kind of trade narrows the organization's scope away from all things profitable to a particular arena. And it's why there is no inconsistency in a company trying to be a news organization. Some news organizations choose to be companies, some choose to be non-profit organization. Unless you believe that consumers are not willing to pay for actual news, there is no conflict at all between being a company and being a news organization.
Second, the perpose of a news orginazation is to both select, report, and analyze the interesting facts of the day **as defined by their readership**. I'm sure you can go find 100% completely objective verifiable information on farm commodities market happenings that is purely factual data. Is this "informative". Yes, if you care about soybean prices, not in the least if you don't. You disrespect the individuality of other readers if you think the information you find interesting is the one true set of "informative" news content.
Give me a break. Your definition of "informative" is colored by your value judgements about what people "should" be told. There is no objective way to determine to define informative. If you tout NPR, it's because NPR's "informative" news is laced with the left wing agenda of its editors and this matches what you think is important.
Any editorial staff of any part of the press selects which stories are important and which aspects of those stories the listeners should be informated about. Those decisions reflect the inherent bias of the editors. This is true of NPR, Fox, Slashdot, or any other forum. NPR is left leaning, Fox is slightly right leaning, Rush Limbaugh is right leaning, and NBC is somewhat left leaning. These classifications are relative and reflect my personal bias regarding where I think these sources stand with regard to the society as a whole. Where I'm different that you though is that I don't try to pretend that one of them is more "informative" than the other, since I think this is a meaningless term.
All in all -- my reaction to this Slashdot article is that it unjustly criticises wikipedia here.
With the resources and ability to dedicate even a full time team to making sure the Wikipedia article keeps them in a good light, I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest.
I just finished reading the wikipedia article. I don't see any indication that it breaks seriously with the NPOV principle. In fact, I was somewhat surprised by the extent to which the article recognizes the existence of and provides links to strongly negative POV opinions. The section titled "Economic impact studies in the United States" is one example, with citations to several studies that are not flattering to Wal-mart.
In fact, if anything, I think some of the negative points against Wal-mart in the wikipedia article may cross the line for editorial quality. For example, the last bullet point under explaination of Wal-mart's financial success is an unverifiable remark that some have accused the company of time sheet manipulation. If someone is actually claiming that wal mart A) systematically manipulates timecards and B) this manipulation takes place on a scale sufficient to account for the finanical success of WM, then the article leaves me with no way to verify who makes such claims (which are clearly POV claims), let alone to verify the veracity of these claims. That bullet should be removed.
I challenge somebody to site the NPOV and unverifiable sections of this article that are pro WM. If anything, after actually looking at the article, I think the wikipedia editors should be mostly commended for keeping this controversial subject as NPOV as possible. The borderline cases I see in the article are on the anti-WM side.
I suspect that there are so many WM bashers out there that many have lost objectivity when their statements are challenged as POV and unverifiable.