Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sun 'Calls JBoss bluff' on J2EE compliance

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the battle-royale-begins dept.

Java 218

joshmccormack writes "According to c|net's news.com Sun has finally responded to JBoss Group's request for J2EE compliance testing. Simon Phipps, Sun's chief technology evangelist stated in the article he thinks JBoss Group is bluffing, that their code won't pass the tests, and that some of the code is just copied from Sun."

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Go get em JBoss! (5, Insightful)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559352)

I'm surprised that Sun put any kind of a negative spin at all on this. An Open Source J2EE compliant Container would be a Cruise Missile right into the Microsoft camp. It's un-friggin ridiculous how damn much IBM, et all, wants for a J2EE compliant server. Honestly, it's outrageous for small companies and your partners you want to deploy to. Honestly, I'm surprised IBM charges as much as they do with all the payroll savings they now have from sending jobs over to India. Where are the savings going? ;-)

Re:Go get em JBoss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559425)

I'm surprised Honestly, Honestly, I'm surprised

Ok we get it, you're surprised and honest.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (0, Offtopic)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559447)

You're just jealous your posts don't capture as many eyeballs as mine do. ;-)

Re:Go get em JBoss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559471)

Pat yourself on the back, you squeezed out a sentence without the words "honestly" or "surprised" in it.

Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (3, Interesting)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559441)

No... that would be BEA and IBM. Since when does Microsoft have a Java App Server??

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (5, Insightful)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559481)

Uhhh, have you heard of .Net? It's popular with many shops because of the lower cost of entrance. The cost of a J2EE Container is a big obstacle for many shops.

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (0)

chrisseaton (573490) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559797)

Uhhh, have you heard of Mono?

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559922)

Mono is not anywhere a company would base a business project on, and no IT manager without a winning lottery ticket would bet his job on Microsoft technology being cross-platform.

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5560070)

Uhhh, his point is that .NET is cheap while J2EE is expensive, and that Sun therefore benefits from the arrival of JBoss.

Bringing up Mono supports his point.

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (1)

rodgerd (402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560085)

+1, Funny.

Re:Cruise Missle into Microsoft?? (5, Interesting)

lewp (95638) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559982)

He's right, though.

This hurts IBM and BEA a lot more than it will hurt Microsoft. Moving a Microsoft shop to J2EE is hard. They're two totally different things. It's like trying to turn a toy factory into a car factory.

Re-training and re-certifying all your developers is likely to hurt your pocketbook a lot more than the cost of a Windows license, or even a Websphere license, even if it is (and it is) ridiculously expensive. Thus, we're not going to see a mass exodus away from .NET, no matter how much I'd love that.

Moving a Weblogic shop to JBoss is easy. You just start dealing with a different company. Most smart companies do this all the time when they see a better deal. You call a different support number, maybe spend a week or so in a class learning what's different, and save a lot of money. Of course, the fact that JBoss is widely regarded as being more developer-friendly than the big commercial servers is great, too.

I'm glad Sun is offering to do this. I'm not surprised they had to think long and hard before doing so.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (0, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559461)

Hint to moderators, the parent is no more insightful than it is coherent.

"It's un-friggin ridiculous how damn much IBM..."

I'm going to have to get out the big parsing guns for this one...

"Honestly, I'm surprised IBM charges as much as they do with all the payroll savings they now have from sending jobs over to India"

And this is related... how?

Supporting evidence?

Re:Go get em JBoss! (1)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559525)

The connection is that IBM charges an arm and a leg for Websphere Advanced and I was making a humorous connection between that and the savings they are making with many of their jobs being shipped to India. Get it now? You can laugh at this point too. If you want to know when to breath in and exhale, just let me know that as well.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559826)

Maybe that is what you were trying to do. However that is not what your previous post said. The previous post did not make sense.

You may argue we should somehow understand your awful grammer or your ill-chosen phrases, but an intelligent person should be able to form a descent sentance. This leaves us to question your intelligence. I think after your other posts in this threads I've formed my own conclusion, you dumb cunt.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (1)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559913)

"...you dumb cunt". Oh yeah, you're the pinnacle of pure breeding. Your true colors are showing through.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (1)

Vengeful weenie (627760) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559573)

These are the problems you get when a company stradles the lines between software/hardware and copyrighted code/free code. I don't think it's a problem of a free version of J2EE, I think it's a problem of J2EE that runs on any platform [read non-SPARC, esp. WinTel].

On the other hand, the fact that JBoss might be using Sun code would be a problem for a truly free implementation.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559682)

I think the right interpretation is: Sun is playing the SCO game. They also said that after the SCO sued IBM they were reconsidering theur long term strategy with Linux. Am I crazy?!...think about it: they want to make people think Free Sw == Stolen Sw. Like IBM stole SCO's IP, so JBoss guys did.

Regards,
chrix

Re:Go get em JBoss! (2, Informative)

Mike TV (644501) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559684)

Bluff, shmuf.. Sun is scared of JBoss and what it might mean if vendors don't want to play ball with their J2EE 1.4 spec. This article [internet.com] claims JBoss doesn't need Sun's testing nor does it want it.

Re:Go get em JBoss! (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559992)

JBoss is continually downloaded on a massive scale. It's also a very active project. It's obviously being used a lot out there. I'm guessing a lot of people get it to try out J2EE and see what the standard can do for them, then when it comes time to create a production system they go to a vendor like BEA or IBM.

How does that help Sun? (4, Insightful)

sterno (16320) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559696)

Sun makes money by charging for the testing and certification and licensing of the J2EE standard to the likes of IBM and BEA. If I can download a free product, that's licensing fees that don't go to Sun. Sure, I'm not buying Microsoft's products, but it's not like Sun would be benefiting either.

Re:How does that help Sun? (2, Interesting)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559757)

I think your point is spot-on. I've read that as well. I was talking to someone today about Sun's sad stock price and commented that it is a shame there isn't a small royality they make on Java period. Just a tiny one would help Sun tremendously.

Slackware 9 is released!!! (-1, Offtopic)

n0dez (657944) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559713)

Heyyy what's going on with you slashdot editors??? I have sent you some news but all have been rejected. The last news I sent was about Slackware; Slackware 9 is released. Other people has reported the same thing: they send news about Slackware's new version 9 and it's been rejected!!! What the hell is going on with you???? Slackware is a Linux distro and is part of the history of Linux as it was the first distro. Go to www.slackware.com And yes, I use Slackware and RedHat. What's wrong with that?? n0dez == www.n0dez.com

Re:Go get em JBoss! (2, Interesting)

dingd0ng (660596) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559738)

It's about time Sun gave JBoss the chance to prove themselves. However, we've been using JBoss successfully for over two years, and will continue to do so regardless what happens between Sun and JBoss. But...go JBoss!!!

Re:Go get em JBoss! (2, Insightful)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559839)

/* Where are the savings going? ;-) */

I know you were just joking here, but keep in mind that the same question arose when the US automakers began shipping US jobs wholesale to Mexico. The automakers stated that the savings to the company would be substantial. Unfortunately, just because it costs less to make does not in any way put the company in any sort of obligation to lower prices. Nike's that cost $200 at the Foot Locker generally only cost $5 at the most in materials, labor, warehousing etc using cheap labor in SE Asia. Where's the savings going? Into the company's coffers. :: sigh ::

Re:Go get em JBoss! (1)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560014)

LOL! I realized that when I wrote the comment. Notice the ";-)" you quoted above. I know what's happening with the savings. ;-) Still, back to the original point, it's unbelievable how much they charge for Websphere Advanced. I know of two shops with 10+ developers that went the Java route but didn't go the J2EE route because of the price of the J2EE compliant servers. They just could not afford it.

antiwar radio (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559892)

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1585845_comme nt.php#1586350
see whats happening in the streets right now!

Where are the savings going? (1, Funny)

Dog and Pony (521538) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559947)

Why, into step 5, of course! :)

Re: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5560017)

It's funny how people that whine about jobs going to India when no one raised a complaint when Blue collar jobs have been heading South and West for two decades. Before it was a result of globalization and the change to a service economy, but now that White collar workers are being affected, people open their mouthes and bitch.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559359)

God bless the troops.

Matt Graham = Worthless (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559381)

...but at least he's going to keep his scholarship.

fp?

Sun's code (5, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559394)

... that their code won't pass the tests, and that some of the code is just copied from Sun.

Meaning, that Sun's code won't pass the tests either?

Re:Sun's code (0, Redundant)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559420)

ROFL!!!!!!! Interesting inference. Sounds like they dissed themselves on that one. LOL!!!!!

Re:Sun's code (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559844)

Meaning that if they copied code from SUN they wont pass the test because suns code sux..

IRAQ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559900)

God damn it! Where are the fucking explosions and shit. I'm getting really bored with this. I want my TV war. Come on you lazy bastards... you get paid to blow shit up and kill people, so do it.

No joke. (5, Interesting)

CatOne (655161) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559940)

We (IONA) certified our app server on Sun, and we failed something like 50 tests which we investigated and found the tests were acutally bad. The thing is, others had passed these same tests -- what we found is that the J2EE reference implementation had bugs which "passed" these bad tests, so obviously everyone else who was certified was using large parts of the reference implementation in their test suite. Heh.

Sun Sucks Dick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559400)

It's run by jews and niggers

Re:Sun Sucks Dick (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559499)

fuck u, you must have thought this was the arian nation web site.

i can't believe you suck your father's cock with that filthy mouth, but i'll bet he only lets you do it to clean the scabs u FUCK!

a pox on your family

Bawd Duh be dum (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559651)

Compliant or not? (4, Insightful)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559412)

For example, a company that writes a billing application using J2EE software and tools should be able to run that program on any J2EE-compliant software without extensive manual coding.

...

But the company asserts that its software is compatible with J2EE because applications written for commercial Java applications servers can be reworked to run on JBoss in a matter of hours or days.

So... what is compliance in this case? It seems to me that if the application has to be reworked and the J2EE standard says otherwise, then there's no issue - JBoss is not compliant? Is that what the J2EE certification actually dictates?

Re:Compliant or not? (5, Interesting)

BrianB (7440) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559480)

The problem is that J2EE servers usually implement the standard and then have non-standard extensions. So, the reworking would basically involve removing the calls to the vendor specific pieces.

Re:Compliant or not? (5, Informative)

dancornell (95530) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559715)

Even beyond discussing non-standard extensions, there are facets of application development/deployment that are not covered by the J2EE spec. Therefore, in order to provide the environment the application expects, there is application-server specific configuration that must go on.

Specifically, this is often the case in setting up the JNDI tree for the application and for the individual components (java:/comp/env/) as well as configuring features like EJB 2.0 CMP where you must map database fields to Entity EJB fields, and configuring the specific JMS queues and topics that you want to connect your Message Driven Beans to.

JBoss uses a jboss.xml config file, BEA WebLogic uses a different configuration file, and other application servers use their own file formats and tools. JBoss offers a tool that helps migrate WebLogic configuration files to their XML format. This doesn't cover non-standard extensions, but it does cover converting many of the application-server configuration options.

Re:Compliant or not? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559508)

Perhaps they are referring to the removal of vendor-specific code?

Re:Compliant or not? (5, Interesting)

mightycthulhu (629741) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559554)

Each vendor has custom deployment descriptors that tell teh app server "how" to deploy the j2ee app.

These need to be custom written (or generated with xdoclet) for each app server.

Each vendor also may more or less strictly enforce the j2ee spec or have hidden proprietary features which freshman developers may unwittingly rely upon.

Re:Compliant or not? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560038)

I find that strictly complying with the deployment descriptor standards works perfectly for JBoss. Using the deploy tool from Sun's J2EE SDK everything I've written works perfectly on JBoss. I can't speak for any other servers, but I'm guessing they may add extensions which their developer tools add to the deployment descriptors. As you say, for non-freshman who know better sticking to the standard works.

Config files, etc... (5, Informative)

lordpixel (22352) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559608)

The J2EE standard doesn't cover everything you'd ever need to do to get an application off the ground.

eg, most enterprise applications allow you to connect to a database. J2EE defines a way of naming the database connection ("DataSource") with a logical name. Say "MyBigDB". This is a name bound into a JNDI tree - basically a directory. Give the directory "MyBigDB" and you get back an instance of DataSource that can connect to your database.

At some point these convenient names "MyBigDB" must be mapped to actual parameters (hostname, username, password, port number) of the database.

J2EE doesn't really specify this. Each vendor has their own config file syntax for doing this mapping.

So this is the sort of thing they mean when they say it takes "hours" to port. You find out where JBoss keeps its config files, what the syntax is, and how to map MyBigDB to the hostname etc.

Hopefully none of your code changes, its just a matter of defining mappings in config files. The more complex your application, the more points of contact with "the real world" or "the bare metal" it probably has. J2EE hides a lot, but it can't hide everything.

Re:Config files, etc... (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559861)

I figured as much. Still, it seems to me that even a simple abstraction could be better -at that level- than simply not specifying what a server should do.

As luck would have it, I've been engaged in a project to create a .NET app server (as an alternative to COM+) for the past few months and we're trying to figure out how other similar products work. My point of reference tends to be the MTS/COM+ model so I've got a ways to go.

Thanks for the explanation.

Re:Compliant or not? (4, Insightful)

lewp (95638) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559620)

There's virtually no non-trivial J2EE application you can just take from one J2EE server to another. Even if both of the servers are officially compliant, say Websphere to Weblogic, there's still enough things left up to the container vendor in the J2EE spec that you're going to need to make modifications for everything to work properly.

Anyone who tells you that you can just deploy a J2EE app on any J2EE server is either lying to you, has never used J2EE, or is deploying apps where someone already put in the necessary time ensuring it works on a bunch of different servers.

The current main idea is to isolate the needed modifications to the application deployment descriptors as much as possible, rather than having to change the actual code.

I'm fairly comfortable editing Java code, and don't have any plans to begin making money off of Java code, so it doesn't do much for me. But in a large enterprise where the developers are far removed from the administrators or for a company trying to make money selling closed-source Java, I suppose this element of J2EE could be a big win.

Additionally, J2EE is fairly young in a lot of ways, and continually evolving. The more widely-implemented vendor-specific features will almost certainly gain official support in later versions of the spec, so as time goes on the situation should continue to get better and porting between servers should only get easier.

Re:Compliant or not? (1, Troll)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559627)

You obviously don't know sh^H^H much about J2EE.
A J2EE application is a mix of 3 things:
  1. Java source code
  2. J2EE XML descriptors
  3. Proprietary XML descriptors
(1) and (2) can be reused. But (3) must be rewritten for each target application server. And depending on the application that is being migrated, this could be done in a matter of hours or days.

Re:Compliant or not? (0, Offtopic)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559816)

You obviously don't know sh^H^H much about J2EE.

Forgive me for asking. Do you hang out in IRC and tell newbies to go RTFM as well?

Re:Compliant or not? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559908)

Dear luser,

Shut up, fucktard.

Sincerely,
Delirium Tremens

Re:Compliant or not? (0)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560039)

Dear AC,

Please note that I never post messages as a loo^H^H^H AC like you did.

Now, go wash your mouth before your grand-ma smacks you for being rude.

Re:Compliant or not? (0, Troll)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559993)

Well, you do have a funny way of commenting that sounds like FUD to me. That's why I jumped at you.

The article says: the company asserts that its software is compatible with J2EE because applications [...] can be reworked to run on JBoss in a matter of hours or days.
Yet, you come in and say that if the application has to be reworked and the J2EE standard says otherwise, then [..] JBoss is not compliant.

It seems to me that you have a serious English problem with understanding causes and their effects. Or maybe I should say RTFA.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. I nearly forgot.

Re:Compliant or not? (2, Insightful)

rodgerd (402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560125)

Because it's just a spec. AIX, IRIX, Windows NT (POSIX Server) and VMS have all claimed to be fully POSIX compliant. Now try and untar, build, and run a POSIX compliant C program on all those platforms unchanged.

J2EE is just a spec. The devil's in the details...

It'll pass, no problem (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559414)

Those of us that have used the "big 2" webapps (weblogic + websphere) and jboss can tell you that jboss will pass J2EE compliance without any issue.

JBoss isn't necessarily as efficient or as fast as the "big 2", but its always first in adapting new versions of J2EE and JSP. JBoss is always on top of new java technology, and doesn't have the vendor specific code that the "big 2", unfortunately, have.
JBoss is really gaining serious popularity in the Java world. Its really a nice product and is true to the "non-vendor specific code" that other app servers claim to have, but don't.

No shit...it's free (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559500)

JBoss is really gaining serious popularity in the Java world.

No shit...it's free

Re:It'll pass, no problem (5, Insightful)

lewp (95638) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559704)

I can't see a problem with having helpful vendor specific features if you're clear about the fact that they are vendor specific.

Scenario 1: You want the ability to easily move between servers. You avoid using the vendor specific features of the various servers. Everything works out fine.

Scenario 2: You don't care about moving between servers. You use handy vendor specific feature A and are able to get up and running faster as a result. Again, everything works out fine.

In 99% of cases I'd go for scenario 1, but I certainly wouldn't be pissed to have scenario 2 available to me, just in case.

Re:It'll pass, no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559897)

Of course JBoss will pass certification.

Just look at the header of all its deployment descriptors... oh wait.. they are not compliant. Well what do you know..

- Definite Troll -

It'll pass (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559912)

I only used JBoss, nothing from any commercial vendor. I have to agree with its quick adoption of new J2EE features. It's also got a great design. Coding for what you might call an extension, though, shouldn't be such a problem. The core itself is relatively small, and every "service" is plugged into it according to standards. So using those other "services" that are written by the JBoss team should be portable to other serves because those services can go along with it. JBoss's database services, for example, should be able to run on other platforms that conform to the standard. I code strictly to the J2EE standards and I've never found a problem with JBoss's compliance.

Hooray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559415)

This is great. JBoss will finally receive a blessing that it has long needed. Even if it doesn't pass the tests at first, you can bet they will shortly thereafter. Isn't that the point of the tests? Who cares what Simon Phipps says.

Here's a summary of the article.. (-1, Offtopic)

deadfishhotmail.com (548162) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559427)

Oh wait! I wasn't suppose to read it.

Good news! (4, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559438)

Regardless of the outcome of the tests, the only way to make progress is to let things happen. Even if they can't pass the tests, they'll come out of it more experienced and have feedback.

Perhaps Sun finally felt some heat from the tech community? (pun intended)

Re:Good news! (2, Insightful)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559586)

I don't get it. This is not school right? They can take the test 100 times a week till they pass. So just making the test available seems to be to be inviting them to pass it. its open source, those guys get happy when bugs and stuff are found after all.

Re:Good news! (1)

pivo (11957) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559784)

They can take the test 100 times a week till they pass

Only if they have a supercomputer. The last time I ran them they took three days, but my machine is slow. Even on a fast machine they'd take a day.

Passing the tests is very difficult and no doubt there will lots of areas where they'll have problems, but yeah, they'll eventually pass and that'll be one fewer reason not to use JBoss. yay.

Re:Good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559857)

There is a reason you're called "the Lesser," isn't there. Intellect, I'd imagine.

Sounds like a setup to me (5, Insightful)

bmongar (230600) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559445)

From the article

However, Phipps said he doubts that JBoss software will pass the compliance test. Basing his opinion on public information, he said, JBoss software does not appear to implement all of the J2EE specification.

Sun should already know if JBoss can pass the test since sun already had the test suite and JBoss is freely avaliable. My guess is they were pouring over the spec next to JBoss with a fine toothed comb to find things that weren't implemented and add the to the suite before it is released.

Re:Sounds like a setup to me (1, Interesting)

mpechner (637217) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559819)

There are some things going here.

People from the JBoss team will be present.

It will be the same test BEA and IBM has to pass.

If this wasn't the case, we'd all be paying for JRun licenses instead fo using TomCat.

Re:Sounds like a setup to me (5, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560016)

Sun should already know if JBoss can pass the test since sun already had the test suite and JBoss is freely avaliable

Sun probably does know. If you were Phipps, would it be better to simply proclaim that JBoss is not compliant and create an Open Source "martyr" or merely suggest it isn't and let the JBoss Group prove you wrong?

Personally I doubt it is actually compliant. The test suite is very thorough and pokes around in obscure areas of the various specs, some of which are ambiguous. The big vendors spend a lot of time massaging their products to comply with the spec with the benefit of the licensed test suit at their disposal. JBoss hasn't had this luxury. They'll need to go through this process before all the light turn green. Don't be surprised if it takes the JBoss Group a year to get there.

I don't blame Sun for withholding certification from JBoss. They have managed to get powerful vendors to sign on to the J2EE platform based on the promise that there is a payoff in terms of licenses. Now that these big vendors have established a credible market for the platform, Sun can let JBoss play and provide a low cost point of entry. Had a "free", certified compliant implementation existed early the big vendors may have thought better of it. Sun now wants JBoss compliant because it makes the platform stronger to have a solid low-cost implementation.

JBoss is not threat to the big J2EE vendors. Implementing a single server side class in J2EE requires writing at least three separate bits of Java code for the home, remote and bean interfaces/classes. There may also be local variants of these to overcome marshalling overhead. XML metadata must also be maintained. This is for a single EJB. If you have many EJBs, you have a very large number of source files and bits of metadata that must be kept in sync. The big commercial vendors sell tools that make this easy. You can do it with vi, but you don't want to. If JBoss is really compliant and really as good as its hype, the vendors will just incorporate it into their own products, just like they did Apache. Their "value add" still remains, because JBoss does little or nothing to relieve the sheer development burden of distributed J2EE development (aside from good dynamic deployment.)

J2EE is now technically credible and supported by real vendors with real products. Now Sun wants to make it cost effective by allowing JBoss to compete after getting its certification ducks in a row. Wise move.

Re:Sounds like a setup to me (1)

ahornby (1734) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560063)

JBoss is not threat to the big J2EE vendors. Implementing a single server side class in J2EE requires writing at least three separate bits of Java code for the home, remote and bean interfaces/classes. There may also be local variants of these to overcome marshalling overhead. XML metadata must also be maintained. This is for a single EJB.
XDoclet makes this really easy - you only have one source file and the rest are generated.

Finally! (5, Interesting)

delirium28 (641609) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559449)

"Call their bluff"? Come on. JBoss has been waiting for almost a year for this test. Will everything pass without a hitch? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that they won't get the certification right away.

I love JBoss, I've used it for pilot projects for a few years now, but I've never been able to get it into production, and one of the reasons is that it wasn't "certified" by Sun. All hail the day when JBoss is certified!

---
I read your email...

Sun: "They copied us" (4, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559452)

However, Phipps said he doubts that JBoss software will pass the compliance test. Basing his opinion on public information, he said, JBoss software does not appear to implement all of the J2EE specification. Phipps also noted that JBoss appears to be using software written by Sun

translation:

"They copied us, and we suck!"

I will never ever say JBoss out loud. I can imagine what it would sound like, and it's frighteningly lame.

Re:Sun: "They copied us" (5, Funny)

abigor (540274) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559591)

"I will never ever say JBoss out loud. I can imagine what it would sound like, and it's frighteningly lame."

Unlike "stratjakt", which just rolls off the tongue.

Re:Sun: "They copied us" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559637)

JB o s s..... hopefully you're not dyslexic...

Sun 'Calls JBoss bluff' on J2EE compliance (-1, Offtopic)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559502)

Mono is already fully EMCA standards compliant and has been for some time.

So? Microsoft Windows 2000 complies with CC EAL4. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559771)

Betcha can't say that about your little rinky-dink Linux or BSD box...

Laugh while you can monkey-boy... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5560108)

IBM Announces Commitment to Common Criteria Security Certification of Linux across IBM eServer Platforms

2/13/2003 18:38

Bernadette Rose submits, " IBM today announced that it will work with the Linux community to enter the Common Criteria certification process for the Linux operating system early this year and proceed with a progressive plan for certifying Linux at increasing security levels through 2003 and 2004. The Common Criteria (CC) is an internationally endorsed, independently tested and rigorous set of standards used by the Federal government, and other organizations around the world, to evaluate the security and assurance levels of technology products.

"With Linux experiencing significant traction among governments around the world, securing Common Criteria certification for Linux will demonstrate that Linux is secure for government applications," said Jon "Maddog" Hall, President and Executive Director of Linux International. "The Linux community is actively working on security enhancements to make Linux even more secure than it is today, which will enable progressively higher levels of certification in the future."

With today's announcement, IBM is committing to partner with the Linux community to complete the CC evaluation and certification, to develop additional security enhancements, and to work with Linux distributors to make them available. In addition, IBM will continue to accelerate its investment in the certification of its servers and family of IBM middleware, including WebSphere®, DB2®, Lotus® and Tivoli® software.

Through its Linux Technology Center, IBM will invest development resources to enable Linux for CC certification across IBM eServer(tm) platforms, and will fund initial evaluations in 2003. Other investments will include ongoing certifications for new and existing IBM products, at or above customer-specified levels.

"Linux is the fastest-growing operating system in the world today, and we see governments and customers across all industries worldwide adopting it at an ever rapid pace because it frees them from dependence on a proprietary approach," said Jim Stallings, IBM General Manager, Linux. "This investment represents the next step in IBM's ongoing commitment to accelerate the development of Linux as a secure, industrial strength operating system."

The United States Federal government requires that all commercially-acquired information technology products used in national security systems be independently certified by approved testing facilities against the Common Criteria, and many other countries adhere to similar standards.
----

FEAR Microsoftie...

Sun/Phipps needs to show more class (5, Insightful)

Kefaa (76147) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559603)

"I predict that now that we're calling their bluff, they will make up another excuse for not doing the tests," Phipps said.

A comment like this from Sun is unnecessary and appears childish. This kind of remark is unprofessional and serves no purpose except to build animosity.

What will he say if it does pass? If it does not pass, did his comment serve any purpose except to give JBOSS a reason to believe the test was biased?

Re:Sun/Phipps needs to show more class (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559689)

A year ago, I might have cared about this, but now, GAH! I am quite fed up with the state of the Java group at Sun. The VM is just terrible, even on Solaris, and the entire J2EE spec is just entirely too ponderous for a lone developer like myself to even consider using, not that I'm advocating .Net either. Personally, I'm gonna stick with tried-and-true PHP/Perl, using HTTP for message passing. Its worked well for me so far. Yeah yeah, I guess this is just flamebait, but I'm tired of Java. It's burned me three times, and it's not happening again.

Re:Sun/Phipps needs to show more class (5, Insightful)

sprytel (242051) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559774)

Sure it does... remember, its all about perception.

When JBoss doesn't pass (as has been pointed out before... its Sun's test and a free product... so they must already know the outcome), then Sun can say:

"See JBoss is an interesting little diversion, but if you want a REAL J2EE-COMPLIANT APP SERVER, then you need to buy a commercial product."

Undoubtedly, JBoss will fix the areas where they are not compliant. But by the time they do, a new J2EE spec will probably be out, and they won't be able to pass again. Keep in mind that all the major app server vendors define the specs via JCP... so JBoss is necessarily going to always be playing catch up.

Its a pretty smart move by Sun. It keeps them from looking like the bad guy, or "anti-open source", but at the same time serves to marginalize JBoss as a competitor to "legitimate" commercial app servers.

Re:Sun/Phipps needs to show more class (1, Funny)

evronm (530821) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559783)

A comment like this from Sun is unnecessary and appears childish. This kind of remark is unprofessional and serves no purpose except to build animosity.

My thoughts Exactly. For someone who's supposed to be an "Evangelist", he sure doesn't know a thing about PR..

<SimpsonsComicBookStoreGuy>"Worst evagelist ever" </SimpsonsComicBookStoreGuy>

:-)

Re:Sun/Phipps needs to show more class (2, Insightful)

Soko (17987) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559787)

What will he say if it does pass?

"Whadda ya know? Guess we wrote the specs in a way that even amatuers could understand them..." - or some other way to spin Sun/Sun's J2EE into looking better.

If it does not pass, did his comment serve any purpose except to give JBOSS a reason to believe the test was biased?

Biased? Having the JBoss devs play that game would be lame as well. What would be worse for Sun would be the following:

"Fuck. Welp, no sense whining about it.

Now that we know where we're not compliant, break out the code editors, people. Let's fix it all now, and then we can tell Phipps to shove it where the Sun don't shine..."

Soko

Re:Sun/Phipps needs to show more class (5, Funny)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560126)

A comment like this from Sun is unnecessary and appears childish. This kind of remark is unprofessional and serves no purpose except to build animosity.

Gee, childish, unprofessional remarks from a Sun employee? What's next? Lies from Redmond?

to be fair (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559617)

There are features in websphere and weblogic that JBoss doesn't have. For example, weblogic has T3 connection pooling that allows webserver to use it's pool of connections. Websphere has tight integration with VAJ. JBoss has it's strengths too, so in terms who is better it depends on the user.


for people who have to connect to DB2, websphere and VAJ is obvious. For those who want to share a connection pool with the webservers weblogic is nice. I think Jboss will pass with minor fixes and changes. No big deal by any means.

Copied Code?!? (5, Insightful)

bokumo (169717) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559619)

If Sun thinks the JBoss group copied code, then why don't they prosecute them under copyright law?

Re:Copied Code?!? (4, Insightful)

rossjudson (97786) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559903)

If they think the JBoss guys copied code, why don't they just point out the file and line numbers. It's open source, isn't it?

Shouldn't Sun (3, Funny)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559657)

be working a getting the dot back into dot com or something? .backwards is everything Russia Soviet In

Re:Shouldn't Sun (4, Funny)

HoneyBunchesOfGoats (619017) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559937)

.backwards is everything Russia Soviet In
Does this mean that Yoda was a communist?

Certification means squat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559670)

Just because a java app server is certified doesn't mean it's perfectly compliant. There are definite holes in WebLogic that aren't there in JBoss. Reading the spec, the JBoss people are the ones who got certain issues right.

Hold on one second... (4, Informative)

jaaron (551839) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559676)

This may not yet be a chance for rejoicing. See the ServerSide [theserverside.com] article on this same issue:


Phipps' remarks are bizarre since it is obvious that no vendor can pass the J2EE 1.4 test suite, since J2EE 1.4 itself is not in final release yet.


There's something not quite right about all this, so it may be a setup by Sun to put JBoss in a difficult position.

Still useful (5, Insightful)

mysterious_mark (577643) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559685)

Even if it isn't 100% J2EE compliant, it still works as bean container, and is in general easier to use and way less expensive than the commercial alternatives, there are some of us who like to use java based web platforms, but don't have six figures to spend on it. And if it isn't J2EE compliant, this isn't such a big issue if the points of non-compliance are openly known. Viva the OSS MM

Re:Still useful-A solution looking for a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559793)

Actually what place does JBOSS have in the sphere of java application servers? Is it (as one person said) the "atomic cannon" of solutions, while all the rest is of "flyswatter" status? What problems does it solve that the rest can not?

JBoss failure means $$$ (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559698)

WIth the horrendous price of Bea's Weblogic and IBM's Websphere, the biggest surprise was the large number of IT departments who were paying up for these compliant solution. I am usually a supporter of Sun but this incident is bringing that into question. I know some of the people involved with JBoss and can attest to their tenacity to provide an opensource alternative EJB server.

Evangelist? More irony? (5, Insightful)

cdthompso1 (648972) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559700)

Isn't it ironic that this guy Phipps' job title is given as "chief technology evangelist" yet he snidely quips that he doubts JBoss, a product that has done much to advance J2EE in the small to mid-size business arena, will even pass the tests?

Re:Evangelist? More irony? (3, Informative)

bnenning (58349) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559881)

No kidding. If he's not reflecting Sun's official position, he needs to be smacked down. If he is, that doesn't speak well for Sun at all.

JBoss and others (5, Informative)

dagooncrn (618659) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559804)

I used all 3 most popular containers (JBoss, WebLogic, Websphere) and seems that JBoss is the best choice. Websphere was always late with standards and Weblogis was always ahead (Websphere was EJB1.0 + some 1.1 compliant when Weblogic had almost all EJB2.0 features), but Weblogic had many errors in it's bleeding edge versions. JBoss was developed fast and with latest specs in mind but I didn't encountered any real problems.

Sun Suck (1, Insightful)

sinnetworks (566924) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559849)

Sun got their head stuck up their ass and their code isn't worth copy/pasting most of the time!

I don't know about J2EE, but their J2ME KVM implementation was such bad code that we had to rewrite some of it to get it pass its own test. Terrible C coding practices I've seen in this VM when we were writing our own code based on their standards to work in sillicon.

Me think they're ashamed that open source software like JBoss are quicker to adapt and evolved according to the needs of their users than Sun could ever be with all their corporate bullshit they spread like jelly.

GO JBOSS! Give them hell

He will get fired to say otherwise! (1)

urbieta (212354) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559859)

I bet Simon Phipps was sitting in the human resources office when stated that hehehe

Another quote ... (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 11 years ago | (#5559943)

Phipps also noted that JBoss appears to be using software written by Sun.

[sarcasm]Considering that JBoss is written in Java and uses the J2EE API, then is this a surprise? After all to use Java you need a JDK, which is written by Sun, as is the JDK.[/sarcasm]

I would certainly be interested to see what 'software' Phipps was refering to.

Newsflash (-1, Troll)

greygent (523713) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560027)

Sun shits on their community more than Microsoft shits on theirs.

Sun bluff? (1)

aled (228417) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560176)

This seems a move from Sun to counter negative press, made for their previous negative to let Jboss pass the test.
Note that Sun is giving JBoss a chance before making comparisons with MS: Sun Microsystems has made an important compliance test available to JBoss Group.
What I don't understand is that because JBoss is open source, if Sun thinks some code is theirs they just have to point to it.

You are right! (4, Funny)

vchoy (134429) | more than 11 years ago | (#5560179)

Quote: "...Phipps also noted that JBoss appears to be using software written by Sun."

./run.sh
.
JBoss Bootstrap Environment
.
JBOSS_HOME: C:\jboss-3.0.6\bin\\..
.
JAVA: c:\j2sdk1.4.1_01\bin\java
.
JAVA_OPTS: -Dprogram.name=run.bat
.
CLASSPATH: ;c:\j2sdk1.4.1_01\lib\tools.jar;C:\jboss-3.0.6\bin \\run.jar
.
------
.
09:01:01,453 INFO [Server] JBoss Release: JBoss-3.0.6 CVSTag=JBoss_3_0_6
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Home Dir: C:\jboss-3.0.6
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Home URL: file:/C:/jboss-3.0.6/
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Library URL: file:/C:/jboss-3.0.6/lib/
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Patch URL: null
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Server Name: default
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Server Home Dir: C:\jboss-3.0.6\server\default
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Server Home URL: file:/C:/jboss-3.0.6/server/default
/
09:01:01,4 68 INFO [Server] Server Data Dir: C:\jboss-3.0.6\server\default\db
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Server Temp Dir: C:\jboss-3.0.6\server\default\tmp
09:01:01,468 INFO [Server] Server Config URL: file:/C:/jboss-3.0.6/server/defau
lt/conf/
09:01 :01,484 INFO [Server] Server Library URL: file:/C:/jboss-3.0.6/server/defa
ult/lib/
09:01: 01,484 INFO [Server] Root Deployemnt Filename: jboss-service.xml
09:01:01,500 INFO [Server] Starting General Purpose Architecture (GPA)...
09:01:01,687 INFO [ServerInfo] Java version: 1.4.1_01,Sun Microsystems Inc.
09:01:01,687 INFO [ServerInfo] Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 1.4.1_01-b01,Sun Microsystems Inc.

-------I admit as a user it's my fault in using "Sun's" Sdk. I will correct this mistake as soon as possible. -----

09:01:01,687 INFO [ServerInfo] OS-System: Windows XP 5.1,x86
09:01:01,718 INFO [ServiceController] Controller MBean online
09:01:01,796 INFO [MainDeployer] Creating
09:01:01,812 INFO [MainDeployer] Created
09:01:01,812 INFO [MainDeployer] Starting
09:01:01,812 INFO [MainDeployer] Started
09:01:01,812 INFO [JARDeployer] Creating
09:01:01,828 INFO [JARDeployer] Created
09:01:01,828 INFO [JARDeployer] Starting
09:01:01,828 INFO [MainDeployer] Adding deployer: org.jboss.deployment.JARDeplo
yer@12d3205
09:01: 01,828 INFO [JARDeployer] Started
09:01:01,843 INFO [SARDeployer] Creating
09:01:01,843 INFO [SARDeployer] Created
09:01:01,843 INFO [SARDeployer] Starting
09:01:01,843 INFO [MainDeployer] Adding .....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?