From: JamesBritt <james@...>
Date: 2002-08-27T00:37:05+09:00
Subject: RE: Distributed Object Container

> J2EE - more specifically, EJB - enables those nice things like pooling,
> transactions, caching, security, persistance (it may provide more
> or less than
> this ;).  You're asking if we can make Ruby do the same, somehow.
>
> The problem is, Ruby is analogous to *Java* (a computer
> programming language),
> not *EJB*, which is essentially a *standard* which is more to do
> with services
> that *application servers* provide rather than a programming
> language.

Well, a standard in the sense that the single proprietary owner dictates the
rules.
But how can you have Enterprise *Java(tm)* Beans without, well, *Java(tm)*?


> The
> only reason it has come about is because Sun has sat down with
> IBM, Oracle,
> etc., and nutted out a standard so that EJBs can be deployed on all these
> different application servers.  This is the benefit of Sun
> controlling Java -
> they have the muscle and the organisation to create these
> agreements at a high
> corporate level.

Was it agreement, or was it simply Sun declaring what the New Hot Java(tm)
Technology would be, and others compelled to follow or drop out of the
Java(tm) game?

There are a lot of smart people at Sun, but, ultimately, decisions about
Java(tm) are based on what's the best marketing strategy for Sun, not what's
the best computer science.

>
> This is why I say to myself: Java is a good environment; it needs a good
> language.
>
> And it can't really be done in Ruby.  My hope is than within two
> years Ruby
> code can be compiled into JVM byte-code (via Parrot?) so that the
> J2EE platform
> can be used in Ruby, Python, Perl, ...


What a nightmare.  One reason I quit may previous job was because I was
compelled to work with J2EE(tm), on iPlanet(tm).  There are some interesting
things about J2EE(tm), but none of them have to do with, or require,
Java(tm).  There is no need to seek J2EE(tm) compatibility other than to
convince clueless managers to go ahead with some technology because it
adheres to familiar buzzwords.

I would hate to see Ruby get caught up in trying to play Sun's game.  If it
came to that, I'd much rather see effort put into getting Ruby compiled to
CLR byte-code and Ruby.net; Microsoft's got a much slicker IDE. :)

James

>
> Gavin
>