[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server environment. We are developing in Java with this solution so I don't mind the naming...I have yet to need a class not offered, guess I have been lucky :) So, what would you recommend calling it? On Nov 27, 12:04 pm, jago wrote: > Hi, > > this is not Java! The whitelist is > ridiculous:http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/jrewhitelist.html > > There is so much missing I don't even know where to start. Is there an > issue I can star that extends the whitelist to the full Java6 lib? > > This is destroying the Java standard and shouldn't be called Java. > Every other company that tries to do an implementation of Java and > call it Java gets a massive punch from Sun. Why is Google allowed to > use Java6 with a whitelist and still call it Java? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Well not Java. Android is also not Java. This is the beginning of fragmentation if Appengine is allowed to go down this road. Seemingly Sun struck some deal with Google. I doubt any other company would get the same liberties. Could you give an example of classes in the JRE lib that would be a stability risk and an explanation why that is? I give a simple example that is not possible with this whitelist. We just tried to add an image caption to an image. Loading images is impossible. Doing anything with fonts as well. I have like half a dozen other scenarios where appengine just fails. If you are in the middle of a project and realize that a certain feature is not achievable just drives you crazy. The argument that one should check before using appengine is moot. I checked. Most projects however 'develop' over time and need features nobody could have possibly foreseen. On Nov 27, 7:17 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > environment. We are developing in Java with this solution so I don't > mind the naming...I have yet to need a class not offered, guess I have > been lucky :) > > So, what would you recommend calling it? > > On Nov 27, 12:04 pm, jago wrote: > > > Hi, > > > this is not Java! The whitelist is > > ridiculous:http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/jrewhitelist.html > > > There is so much missing I don't even know where to start. Is there an > > issue I can star that extends the whitelist to the full Java6 lib? > > > This is destroying the Java standard and shouldn't be called Java. > > Every other company that tries to do an implementation of Java and > > call it Java gets a massive punch from Sun. Why is Google allowed to > > use Java6 with a whitelist and still call it Java? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
We know use it for 2 month and are finally completely stuck. This means bye-bye appengine and realizing our losses. The Google Web Toolkit is also not called the Google Java Web Toolkit. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/overview.html does not give a peep about a whitelist! They should directly in the paragrah enter a box and write in red: attention, there is a whitelist of usable classes! Be aware of this! Whenever I heard Java before we knew that we dealt with a certain standard. There should be zero mention of the word 'Java' anywhere if it isn't a real Java! What does it mean if they use the Java6 JVM? The Java6 JVM allows multithreading and other things are missing - so not even the JVM claim is true. But the JVM has little to do with the standard 'Java'. What according to Sun deserves the name 'Java'? Answer: Sun is attempting to impose before providing Harmony with Java Compatibility Kit (JCK) technology necessary to demonstrate full Java functionality. Source: http://www.itpro.co.uk/109790/apache-sun-in-java-licensing-clash Does Google Appengine Java pass the JCK? No effing way! So don't call it Java! Call it jAppengine oder AppengineJ. In the end all they support is Java syntax and a couple of classes. On Nov 27, 8:13 pm, Nicolas Melendez wrote: > i agree. should be called different. > call it gJava, googleJava or whatever. > > bye, > NM > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Diana Cruise wrote: > > > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > > environment. We are developing in Java with this solution so I don't > > mind the naming...I have yet to need a class not offered, guess I have > > been lucky :) > > > So, what would you recommend calling it? > > > On Nov 27, 12:04 pm, jago wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > this is not Java! The whitelist is ridiculous: > >http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/jrewhitelist.html > > > > There is so much missing I don't even know where to start. Is there an > > > issue I can star that extends the whitelist to the full Java6 lib? > > > > This is destroying the Java standard and shouldn't be called Java. > > > Every other company that tries to do an implementation of Java and > > > call it Java gets a massive punch from Sun. Why is Google allowed to > > > use Java6 with a whitelist and still call it Java? > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
On Nov 27, 12:17 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > environment. Well, since you asked, java.lang.Thread is NOT a problem in most shared app server environments. The Google App Engine is 'special' in this regard. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
I do not doubt that GAE is also good for big applications. That's not the reason I started this thread. The question is if they should call themselves Java. Even if so if they shouldn't out of pure decency put a big red warning sign at the top of every page telling people about the whitelist. On Nov 27, 9:39 pm, Nicolas Melendez wrote: > i belive GAE is good for small application. > i made one with three forms and it was good. > For medium or big applications use your own server and db, and enjoy > freedom. > maybe in the future will grow up, and will be ok for medium and big. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
What do you mean with not a problem? On Nov 27, 10:13 pm, ted stockwell wrote: > On Nov 27, 12:17 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > > > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > > environment. > > Well, since you asked, java.lang.Thread is NOT a problem in most > shared app server environments. > The Google App Engine is 'special' in this regard. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
> In the end all they > support is Java syntax and a couple of classes. I count 1332. Since you're so particular about your terminology, you may want to look up "a couple." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Apologies, I see I didn't read the original e-mail closely. I was thinking 'shared server environment', not 'shared app server environment'. But, come to think of it, I guess whitelist is so large because GAE/J is a shared app server, not a shared server. On Nov 27, 4:22 pm, jago wrote: > What do you mean with not a problem? > > On Nov 27, 10:13 pm, ted stockwell wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 12:17 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > > > > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > > > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > > > environment. > > > Well, since you asked, java.lang.Thread is NOT a problem in most > > shared app server environments. > > The Google App Engine is 'special' in this regard. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Jago...in shared environments you can't let apps launch their own threads, you can't let apps takeover file systems, etc...these are basic principles for shared resources such as GAE and, for example, contradicts J2EE specs such as EJB and so on. Such apps belong on dedicated servers. Also, loading of images to datastore is possible with VFS...as far as editing images, I don't know. Ted... java.lang.Thread, you want to launch new processes from within your app server...that's a job for URLFetch. Anyhow, I was just curious at what you couldn't do...good to share that with the community in case they know something you don't. As far as the naming goes, you may be the first to raise this concern in GAE's existence (2 years or so). On Nov 27, 6:07 pm, marksea wrote: > > In the end all they > > support is Java syntax and a couple of classes. > > I count 1332. Since you're so particular about your terminology, you > may want to look up "a couple." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
On Nov 27, 7:19 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > > Ted... java.lang.Thread, you want to launch new processes from within > your app server...that's a job for URLFetch. > Unlike Thread, I can't use URLFetch to perform a task asynchronously and return a result to the calling thread. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Actually, many people had the same reaction when GAE/J was released. See for instance, http://weblogs.java.net/blog/2009/04/16/google-app-engine-java-sucks Without a doubt if some smaller player created such an incompatible implementation they would not be allowed to call it 'Java'. On Nov 27, 7:19 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: As far > as the naming goes, you may be the first to raise this concern in > GAE's existence (2 years or so). > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
I'd say look before your leap. http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java/web/will-it-play-in-app-engine?hl=en Your asking one company to change a product name due finding yourself mislead. Even if I agreed with your perspective I'd welcome you to Capitalism. On Nov 28, 10:53 am, Ravi Sharma wrote: > Guys i think we have lots of more important issue to discuss here then "what > should be the name". > Shakespeare said once *What's in a name* :). > I am waiting for my other queries to be answered by Google guys.. i hope > they are enjoying Thanks giving holidays and will reply back soon.. > > Enjoy. > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM, ted stockwell wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 7:19 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > > > > Ted... java.lang.Thread, you want to launch new processes from within > > > your app server...that's a job for URLFetch. > > > Unlike Thread, I can't use URLFetch to perform a task asynchronously > > and return a result to the calling thread. > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
If you were able to go 2 months without noticing that there was a whitelist then it must be more extensive than you make it seem. If you made a decision without the knowledge that GAE exposes only a subset of Java then i understand your frustration but it's really all your fault because it's documented, comes up fairly often and permeates almost every topic around here. Bobby -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
The subject of this thread really caught my eye. I have to echo Bobby: I read about the GAE before trying to implement anything on it, and was well aware of the limitations. I'd have to suggest that you read the docs prior to assuming anything about the environment. The subject matter in this thread brings up a good point (not really worth discussing, but fun anyway): what IS "Java"? Is it: a) the SDK/JRE? Or b) the Java language specification? I think the answer is "b". Since pretty much all code running on GAE is written using the Java language (there's some xml in there), it's appropriately named "Google App Engine for Java". There's no "SDK" or "JDK" reference in there. No promise about java.util or any other package in there. It just states what it is: an app engine that runs code written in the Java programming language. Jago, I think the same goes for your statement "Android is not Java". Of course it isn't, Android is a platform that runs code "written in the Java programming language". The code is indeed written in Java, but then compiled to Dalvik byte-code. :) The same goes for GWT, it's code written in the Java programming language, and then compiled to raw JavaScript. There's a very small subset of the JDK that can be used in GWT, but people seem to be doing just fine with those limitations (of course, I'm sure they knew about the limitations prior to writing code in GWT). I think there are multiple advantages present in the GAE, it's certainly not for every app, but it can sure power some very complicated systems, and they seem to be fine with the whitelist (Google Wave for instance). I've been porting our system to the GAE in my spare time just to see if it can handle the data structures our system uses. We currently run on Glassfish, using JAX-WS for SOAP web services and use JMS, JSF 1.2 blah blah blah... a bunch of stuff GAE doesn't support, and I've found that I can generally get around the limitations put on me by the GAE. I understand frustration brought on by the system restrictions, however, it's nothing you can't get around if you approach the problem from a different angle. And if you can't get around it, perhaps move to a different system. I've heard that Amazons cloud is much harder to use and has many more restrictions, but I could be wrong, I've not looked closely at it. Now, if we're splitting hairs here, I'd say you may have a case in suggesting that JDO is not fully supported on the GAE. It'd be much more fair to say that the GAE supports a "small subset" of the JDO specification. However, saying "it's not Java" simply isn't true. The code is written using the Java language. -bryce On Nov 27, 10:52 pm, Bobby wrote: > If you were able to go 2 months without noticing that there was a > whitelist then it must be more extensive than you make it seem. If you > made a decision without the knowledge that GAE exposes only a subset > of Java then i understand your frustration but it's really all your > fault because it's documented, comes up fairly often and permeates > almost every topic around here. > > Bobby -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Maybe for terminology's sake it would make sense to detach the GAE from any language associations and just indicate that there are cross- compilers from Java/Python to GAE. Then there would be no question on whether it's "technically Java" - one does write in Java, it's just that the cross-compiler has its own requirements and limitations. Is that any better? :) Bobby On Nov 30, 2:58 pm, Nicolas Melendez wrote: > if we are going to collaborate each other, we need the right names because > communication is critical. > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jess Evans wrote: > > There are innovators who "attempt" to advance the field and be the first. > > They appeal to the desperate and the early adopters with nothing to loose > > and much to gain. > > > There are guardians with deep experience who strive to ensure reliability > > and predictability. They appeal to those upon whom many are dependent; > > those with everything to lose and little to gain. > > > Both camps are invaluable. > > > Incorrectly categorizing a technology, or failing to understand who you're > > employed to represent, are personal problems. > > > On Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM, "Jeff Schnitzer" wrote: > > > I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating > > stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. > > > JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. > > What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that > > Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own > > vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official > > specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of > > crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere > > sometime, I dare you. > > > For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application > > service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never > > have come out of the JCP. > > > If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! > > > Jeff > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Google App Engine fo... > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Suppose someone writes an app in C and wishes to cross compile to Java. In that scenario, if some C class is unsupported by the cross- compiler, then does the C app stop being a C app? No. Bobby On Dec 1, 4:10 am, Bobby wrote: > Maybe for terminology's sake it would make sense to detach the GAE > from any language associations and just indicate that there are cross- > compilers from Java/Python to GAE. Then there would be no question on > whether it's "technically Java" - one does write in Java, it's just > that the cross-compiler has its own requirements and limitations. Is > that any better? :) > > Bobby > > On Nov 30, 2:58 pm, Nicolas Melendez > wrote: > > > if we are going to collaborate each other, we need the right names because > > communication is critical. > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jess Evans wrote: > > > There are innovators who "attempt" to advance the field and be the first. > > > They appeal to the desperate and the early adopters with nothing to loose > > > and much to gain. > > > > There are guardians with deep experience who strive to ensure reliability > > > and predictability. They appeal to those upon whom many are dependent; > > > those with everything to lose and little to gain. > > > > Both camps are invaluable. > > > > Incorrectly categorizing a technology, or failing to understand who you're > > > employed to represent, are personal problems. > > > > On Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM, "Jeff Schnitzer" wrote: > > > > I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating > > > stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. > > > > JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. > > > What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that > > > Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own > > > vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official > > > specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of > > > crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere > > > sometime, I dare you. > > > > For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application > > > service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never > > > have come out of the JCP. > > > > If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! > > > > Jeff > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups "Google App Engine fo... > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
I agree with Ravi and Bryce...we have other fish to fry (threads to answer) and Java is a programming language reference which doesn't imply every library under the sun (pun intended). On Dec 1, 4:19 am, bryce cottam wrote: > the GAE isn't cross-compiling, javac is doing the compiling (the real > java compiler), so it's kind of a moot argument. The point is, the > system runs java, not g-java, not pseudo-java, it's java. It just > doesn't have all the libraries you want. That's all. It's written in > the Java programming language (or Scala, or Groovy JRuby or anything > else that runs on the JVM) and runs on a JVM... it's Java. > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Bobby wrote: > > Suppose someone writes an app in C and wishes to cross compile to > > Java. In that scenario, if some C class is unsupported by the cross- > > compiler, then does the C app stop being a C app? No. > > > Bobby > > > On Dec 1, 4:10 am, Bobby wrote: > >> Maybe for terminology's sake it would make sense to detach the GAE > >> from any language associations and just indicate that there are cross- > >> compilers from Java/Python to GAE. Then there would be no question on > >> whether it's "technically Java" - one does write in Java, it's just > >> that the cross-compiler has its own requirements and limitations. Is > >> that any better? :) > > >> Bobby > > >> On Nov 30, 2:58 pm, Nicolas Melendez > >> wrote: > > >> > if we are going to collaborate each other, we need the right names > >> > because > >> > communication is critical. > > >> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jess Evans > >> > wrote: > >> > > There are innovators who "attempt" to advance the field and be the > >> > > first. > >> > > They appeal to the desperate and the early adopters with nothing to > >> > > loose > >> > > and much to gain. > > >> > > There are guardians with deep experience who strive to ensure > >> > > reliability > >> > > and predictability. They appeal to those upon whom many are dependent; > >> > > those with everything to lose and little to gain. > > >> > > Both camps are invaluable. > > >> > > Incorrectly categorizing a technology, or failing to understand who > >> > > you're > >> > > employed to represent, are personal problems. > > >> > > On Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM, "Jeff Schnitzer" wrote: > > >> > > I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating > >> > > stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. > > >> > > JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. > >> > > What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that > >> > > Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own > >> > > vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official > >> > > specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of > >> > > crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere > >> > > sometime, I dare you. > > >> > > For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application > >> > > service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never > >> > > have come out of the JCP. > > >> > > If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! > > >> > > Jeff > > >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > > Groups "Google App Engine fo... > > >> > > -- > >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > > Groups > >> > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > >> > > To post to this group, send email to > >> > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> > > . > >> > > For more options, visit this group at > >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.- Hide quoted > > text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Of course this should be called GAE Java, then what else? You could call every java feature you wish to, except that unsupported features will be met with runtime exception. If I made a robotic mainframe that we decided would be base on the JVM but certain Java features would cause inconsistencies or clashing of robotic limbs, we would simply preempt any catastrophe by runtime exceptions. Then we broadcast the java api to customers of the mainframe. Then customers request that we create an eclipse plugin that warns/ disallows them of any java code that would cause runtime exceptions and we tell our customers the name of the package is xyz robotic engine java. Should our customers complain to us and say, hey this is not java, you have to many exceptions. ??? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
i agree. should be called different. call it gJava, googleJava or whatever. bye, NM On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Diana Cruise wrote: > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > environment. We are developing in Java with this solution so I don't > mind the naming...I have yet to need a class not offered, guess I have > been lucky :) > > So, what would you recommend calling it? > > On Nov 27, 12:04 pm, jago wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this is not Java! The whitelist is ridiculous: > http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/jrewhitelist.html > > > > There is so much missing I don't even know where to start. Is there an > > issue I can star that extends the whitelist to the full Java6 lib? > > > > This is destroying the Java standard and shouldn't be called Java. > > Every other company that tries to do an implementation of Java and > > call it Java gets a massive punch from Sun. Why is Google allowed to > > use Java6 with a whitelist and still call it Java? > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
i belive GAE is good for small application. i made one with three forms and it was good. For medium or big applications use your own server and db, and enjoy freedom. maybe in the future will grow up, and will be ok for medium and big. On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:24 PM, jago wrote: > We know use it for 2 month and are finally completely stuck. This > means bye-bye appengine and realizing our losses. > > The Google Web Toolkit is also not called the Google Java Web Toolkit. > http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/overview.html does not give > a peep about a whitelist! They should directly in the paragrah enter a > box and write in red: attention, there is a whitelist of usable > classes! Be aware of this! > > Whenever I heard Java before we knew that we dealt with a certain > standard. There should be zero mention of the word 'Java' anywhere if > it isn't a real Java! What does it mean if they use the Java6 JVM? The > Java6 JVM allows multithreading and other things are missing - so not > even the JVM claim is true. But the JVM has little to do with the > standard 'Java'. What according to Sun deserves the name 'Java'? > > Answer: Sun is attempting to impose before providing Harmony with Java > Compatibility Kit (JCK) technology necessary to demonstrate full Java > functionality. > Source: http://www.itpro.co.uk/109790/apache-sun-in-java-licensing-clash > > Does Google Appengine Java pass the JCK? No effing way! So don't call > it Java! Call it jAppengine oder AppengineJ. In the end all they > support is Java syntax and a couple of classes. > > > > > > On Nov 27, 8:13 pm, Nicolas Melendez > wrote: > > i agree. should be called different. > > call it gJava, googleJava or whatever. > > > > bye, > > NM > > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Diana Cruise >wrote: > > > > > I'm curious which classes you are referring to that are missing and > > > are NOT considered a stability risk running under a shared app server > > > environment. We are developing in Java with this solution so I don't > > > mind the naming...I have yet to need a class not offered, guess I have > > > been lucky :) > > > > > So, what would you recommend calling it? > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:04 pm, jago wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > this is not Java! The whitelist is ridiculous: > > >http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/jrewhitelist.html > > > > > > There is so much missing I don't even know where to start. Is there > an > > > > issue I can star that extends the whitelist to the full Java6 lib? > > > > > > This is destroying the Java standard and shouldn't be called Java. > > > > Every other company that tries to do an implementation of Java and > > > > call it Java gets a massive punch from Sun. Why is Google allowed to > > > > use Java6 with a whitelist and still call it Java? > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
Guys i think we have lots of more important issue to discuss here then "what should be the name". Shakespeare said once *What's in a name* :). I am waiting for my other queries to be answered by Google guys.. i hope they are enjoying Thanks giving holidays and will reply back soon.. Enjoy. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM, ted stockwell wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 7:19 pm, Diana Cruise wrote: > > > > Ted... java.lang.Thread, you want to launch new processes from within > > your app server...that's a job for URLFetch. > > > > Unlike Thread, I can't use URLFetch to perform a task asynchronously > and return a result to the calling thread. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere sometime, I dare you. For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never have come out of the JCP. If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! Jeff -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
There are innovators who "attempt" to advance the field and be the first. They appeal to the desperate and the early adopters with nothing to loose and much to gain. There are guardians with deep experience who strive to ensure reliability and predictability. They appeal to those upon whom many are dependent; those with everything to lose and little to gain. Both camps are invaluable. Incorrectly categorizing a technology, or failing to understand who you're employed to represent, are personal problems. On Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM, "Jeff Schnitzer" wrote: I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere sometime, I dare you. For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never have come out of the JCP. If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! Jeff -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine fo... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
if we are going to collaborate each other, we need the right names because communication is critical. On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jess Evans wrote: > There are innovators who "attempt" to advance the field and be the first. > They appeal to the desperate and the early adopters with nothing to loose > and much to gain. > > There are guardians with deep experience who strive to ensure reliability > and predictability. They appeal to those upon whom many are dependent; > those with everything to lose and little to gain. > > Both camps are invaluable. > > Incorrectly categorizing a technology, or failing to understand who you're > employed to represent, are personal problems. > > On Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM, "Jeff Schnitzer" wrote: > > I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating > stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. > > JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. > What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that > Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own > vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official > specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of > crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere > sometime, I dare you. > > For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application > service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never > have come out of the JCP. > > If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! > > Jeff > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Google App Engine fo... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Why is it called "Google App Engine for Java" ?
the GAE isn't cross-compiling, javac is doing the compiling (the real java compiler), so it's kind of a moot argument. The point is, the system runs java, not g-java, not pseudo-java, it's java. It just doesn't have all the libraries you want. That's all. It's written in the Java programming language (or Scala, or Groovy JRuby or anything else that runs on the JVM) and runs on a JVM... it's Java. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Bobby wrote: > Suppose someone writes an app in C and wishes to cross compile to > Java. In that scenario, if some C class is unsupported by the cross- > compiler, then does the C app stop being a C app? No. > > Bobby > > On Dec 1, 4:10 am, Bobby wrote: >> Maybe for terminology's sake it would make sense to detach the GAE >> from any language associations and just indicate that there are cross- >> compilers from Java/Python to GAE. Then there would be no question on >> whether it's "technically Java" - one does write in Java, it's just >> that the cross-compiler has its own requirements and limitations. Is >> that any better? :) >> >> Bobby >> >> On Nov 30, 2:58 pm, Nicolas Melendez >> wrote: >> >> > if we are going to collaborate each other, we need the right names because >> > communication is critical. >> >> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jess Evans wrote: >> > > There are innovators who "attempt" to advance the field and be the first. >> > > They appeal to the desperate and the early adopters with nothing to loose >> > > and much to gain. >> >> > > There are guardians with deep experience who strive to ensure reliability >> > > and predictability. They appeal to those upon whom many are dependent; >> > > those with everything to lose and little to gain. >> >> > > Both camps are invaluable. >> >> > > Incorrectly categorizing a technology, or failing to understand who >> > > you're >> > > employed to represent, are personal problems. >> >> > > On Nov 30, 2009 12:22 PM, "Jeff Schnitzer" wrote: >> >> > > I, for one, am sick and tired of Sun's domineering, suffocating >> > > stranglehold on what is and isn't Java. GAE is a breath of fresh air. >> >> > > JavaME and JavaEE also impose a variety of limitations on Java. >> > > What's the difference between those and GAE? The difference is that >> > > Sun got a committee of big company representatives with their own >> > > vested interests in a closed room and argued about how "the official >> > > specs" should work for years... and ultimately produced a bunch of >> > > crap that is barely useful to anyone. Just *try* out Websphere >> > > sometime, I dare you. >> >> > > For the first time ever, someone has produced a shared application >> > > service model for Java that's even easier than PHP. This could never >> > > have come out of the JCP. >> >> > > If this is "destroying java", then GOOD RIDDANCE! >> >> > > Jeff >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > > Groups "Google App Engine fo... >> >> > > -- >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > > "Google App Engine for Java" group. >> > > To post to this group, send email to >> > > google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> > > . >> > > For more options, visit this group at >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-j...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
