That's the idea - but the reality is that if you sell someone a liscense to your app server, you wouldn't want them to use your app server to develop an app and then distribute it to run on competitor's app servers. So I think the dream of cross-compatible applications is at odds with making a profit.
Adding proprietary extensions - even though it's not exactly the same as what MS did, it seems philosophically the same to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cantrell, Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:37 PM Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com) > You are correct in the eyes of SUN's marketing department. If the term, > "write once, run anywhere" were to hold true, it wouldn't matter whether > "Joe the J2EE Guy" wrote the code, or whether it was autmagically created by > a set of NEO templates - it's all java right? And since it's java, > technically you should be able to run it in any J2EE compliant environment. > > Do I have the wrong idea? Is the term, "write once, run anywhere", still a > valid adjective to associate with Java, or has that become the running joke > in the community? I've of course heard the term "write once, debug > everywhere" thrown around, so obviously some people have some issues with > Sun's claims - maybe just incompetent programmers? > > The only reason I'm still afraid of Java is because I still associate it > with the Applet hype from the mid 90's. It turned into a huge > disappointment, and I feel like Sun simply tried to recoup some of their > marketing dollars by turning it into a server-side scripting technology. Now > EVERYONE is writing their "enterprise-level" systems on the same technology > that was used to design those slow, crummy "Water Reflection" applets from > the mid 90's. Is this a good thing? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Billy Cravens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:32 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com) > > > > > > I would agree, and would hate to see many of those features go away. > > However, many of the marketing claims I've heard is that you > > can put the > > generated class files on any "supported" J2EE engine and > > they'll run. In > > other words, they make it sound as if I can take my class > > files generated on > > a Win32 box and move them anywhere I want - even on a machine > > without CF. I > > simply cannot see how this is true. Maybe I'm a bit too > > caught up in the > > whole truth in advertising thing. :-) (Of course, they're not really > > advertising - more like a buzz-word-orama festival) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:56 AM > > Subject: RE: CF6 & true J2EE Compliance (was Re: Macromedia.com) > > > > > > > > If it's true J2EE, it should be portable across all J2EE > > > > platforms. Of course, you'll notice that they in the initial > > > > public Neo info that they are only supporting a limited set of > > > > J2EE engines (interestingly enough, all of them are commercial > > > > products - even though there are a number of open-source J2EE > > > > products that are fully compliant). I doubt that CF6 will be > > > > true J2EE, which is rather unfortunate. > > > > > > I think you're reading too much into this. I suspect that > > it will, in > > fact, > > > be portable, and that will a little tweaking, you'll be > > able to get it > > > running on Tomcat/Jakarta. However, there are enough implementation > > details, > > > such as how installers work, which strike me as potentially > > complex. As > > for > > > their support of commercial platforms first, that makes > > perfect sense to > > me > > > - they can take advantage of IBM and BEA for setup support > > and development > > > issues, rather than doing all the work themselves. > > > > > > > I've never gotten a straight answer as to how they can > > > > support things like CFObject yet still be compliant. Sun > > > > sued (and won) Microsoft for bastardizing the Java spec. > > > > > > J2EE compliance doesn't mean that you can't implement > > additional features. > > > Every commercial J2EE server does this - there's stuff in > > BEA WebLogic > > that > > > facilitates Tuxedo connectivity, I think. J2EE compliance > > simply means > > that > > > all of the stuff within the J2EE specification has been implemented. > > > > > > The comparison with Microsoft is flawed - Microsoft was > > sued by Sun over > > the > > > fact that they built platform-specific features into the > > Java language > > > itself - into the VM and compiler. There's nothing to stop > > a vendor from > > > building functionality into a Java application beyond what > > Java itself > > > provides - that's the purpose behind native interfaces like JNI. > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Why Share? Dedicated Win 2000 Server · PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER Instant Activation · $99/Month · Free Setup http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusionc FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
