From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2002-08-27T07:57:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Distributed Object Container


----- Original Message -----
From: " JamesBritt" <james@jamesbritt.com>


> > 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)*?

Two sides:
1. You can't.  They are defined in such a way that they use Java.
2. EJBs is a "way of doing things" (relating to disributed objects) that is not
hardcoded in any language.

It's a standard in the sense that together with prospective implementors and
prospective users, they have defined a mechanism, EJBs, and a set of services
(transactions, persistence, ...) that the app server implementors must provide
so the users can:
 - benefit from this technology
 - port their distributed apps to other (compliant) platforms

So Sun is not dictating things.  J2EE is IMO too verbose and a bit hacky, but
at least it was designed, with consultation, to give people what they want.

> > 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?

It was agreement.  You probably don't repect the people/companies that were
part of the agreement, but it was a collaborative effort.  It's not in Sun's
interest to be so dictatorial, for the very reason that the services J2EE
provides is *not* in the realm of a programming *language*.  If they didn't
"co-operate" to some degree, the vendors, or somebody else, would fill the void
with another language.

> 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.

Of course.  What's your point?  Of course Sun is trying to paint themselves
onto the scene.  Their aim is not to create good computer science, but to make
money.  We can expect, however, that the two will intersect somewhere.

Their aim is for people to be able to create distributes systems and integrate
with application severs in a standard way.  What on earth is wrong with that?

> >
> > 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.

If you took over a large project that heavily used EJB, J2EE, app servers, and
the whole shebang, how would you reimplement it?  Extra credit will be given to
solutions that are "pure computer science" and do not contain "(tm)" anywhere.
Nor should there be any 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

Ruby can't play Sun's game, unless a Sun-like company/consortium pushed Ruby as
the language to use to tie together "all these wonderful technologies".  And I
wouldn't want to see Ruby playing that game, either.

Gavin