RE: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source
OK. I think I understand. Do you need to produce internal builds for reference on different OS/JDK combinations and should you build your own binary distribution from the source? Generally not. Things are pretty much going to work as is on any system for the binary distribution - hopefully that hype about bytecode transporability is true! There may be problems with OS/JDK combinations - but that is beyond being a JBoss issue. Meaning if you need to support clients with different configurations, you probably will need to be able to reproduce their environments. For support work, the source code for JBoss is useful - so if something does break in JBoss on customer site, you can look at the trouble spot and determine what the problem is at code level, and what needs to be fixed - your own code or JBoss/Tomcat/Jetty code. But this is cheaper than arranging code escrow contracts with the vendor as JBoss is open-source. With large or high-risk/high impact projects you'd need to organise for access to vendor source code to be able to guarantee SLAs to your clients as well as in the event the vendor goes into Chapter 11 or equivalent - a torturous, lengthy and dead-boring exercise (my apologies to lawyers). But when I was in Telecoms, that was what you needed to do. You couldn't wait for the vendor to supply a patch if something went haywire with your X.400 MTAs - if something was broken, you had to trace through the situation and generate a patch yourself, or at least understand the problem. If customers want to argue in bottom-line terms, you can always outline the commercial costs - do a side by side with third party container supplier, throwing in SLAs (response time for you from vendor and what this means for the customer), risk management costs (what are your escrow arrangement costs plus third party Gold support for example) and so on. JonB smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source
Thank you for your input. I've been using the binaries in a university project wich involves clustering. However, I've found and reported bugs/problems that were fixed on cvs. Until the next release was provided, I had to resort to building from CVS to benefit from those fixes. This is exactly what i trying to provide to my customer: a way to build the whole stuff from cvs - as a reference implementation of the JBoss, which will be customized (in config and in specific .?ars to be deployed) for every project in the company. There are three of them at the very moment and all are working with plain 3.0.4 binaries only. Plain binaries. Without even running the tests against the server on different platforms (Win, Linux, ..., jdk-1.3.1, jdk-1.4.1). If you don't need something from cvs, I see no reason why you should not use binaries. It seems to be the problem for my understanding: The name is Open_Source_, not Open_Binary_. There _are_ IMHO drawbacks in comparison with commercial products if you are not using the source. You are alone with your risks (o.k. not with the 'normal' operation). The (only) answer will always be: Use the Source, Luke. Or take the commercial (i am not ranting!!) support, who will build this reference implementation for you. So, is anybody out there who is using _only_ the binary package and has good experience in doing so ?? ... in the case of providing no refrence implementation for deriving (on source level) the special project 'bundles' of JBoss. bax --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are driving at so let me try and paraphrase your question and answer that. You can come back and tell me I've misinterpreted it. ;) Sorry, my english is not a whole better then my c++ source code, my babelfish is on holiday :) Should someone developing J2EE applications for deployment on JBoss require the JBoss source code? ... for building a 'internal' reference implementation of the JBoss to support different OSs and JDKs and JITCs - different infrastructures. There is usually no need to have the JBoss source code. The examples and paid-for-documentation are sufficient. The prebuilt production release binaries work fine. There is an assumption that you already have experience or at least have familiarity with building J2EE applications. So if you have knowledge on J2EE application development and deployment, you can pick up the extra details on configuring the JBoss specific deployment descriptors should you need to employ these. We've used JBoss for many years without having to delve into the source code to understand how to deploy a web application. Yep, i do not talking about: development of J2EE apps. I am talking about: Using (and providing to someone) the JBoss infrastructure in a reproducible manner. Risk management. As with any J2EE container though, the J2EE spec leaves open some areas for vendor interpretation and JBoss is no different to any other container in this respect. Therefore the examples are necessary to understand how JBoss addresses such gaps or implements the solution. However, this is a different issue to requiring the JBoss source code. I have 10 days worth of training in SilverStream and two large example tutorial manuals covering SilverStream specific development and deployment. I have about the same with the different WebSphere configuration releases. Even with these, unless you have had experience with application servers before, the training doesn't help you the first time the server install doesn't work on site, or something clashes with pre-existing software. At least with JBoss, the subsystems are documented, and relatively transparent in configuration. And you don't usually need to spend another half day re-installing the app server. The source code is only necessary if you believe there is a bug and you feel inclined to track it down. The other users of this open-source product will thank you if you can make things better for them. But that is the co-operative nature of the project/collective. And this is hard to explain to a non-cooperative gaming company. But OTOH, i have the strong feeling, that one will rather sooner need the source in a medium havy project for tracking down the stuff. Why not starting with this? Like test-first is the afterburner of debugging. Posting the JBoss and/or underlying infrastructure improvements has to go without saying. JBoss application deployment is simple and transparent, IMHO. You can usually figure out why something broke, if you know your J2EE. And if things break in the JBoss engine, you can always ask here or at the forums. There is always someone willing to offer their experience. Remember that this is an open-source product. People have spent their free-time contributing and helping out. Constructive criticism is appreciated - doing something to address a shortcoming even more appreciated. Denigrating what someone has laboured over in their own time - probably not in the spirit of open-source. Oh, i have something mistakeable written? Sorry for that. If you do want professional support for JBoss deployments, there are various organisations including JBoss Group LLC who provide such commercial services. I understand they all provide professional quality support as good as, if not better than any commercial organisation. Own bitter experience: Some people take the 1st class JBoss product as a binary like shrink-wrapped CloseWare, filling it into their tin-boxes and are then bitching about opensource because they are not using one of the three leading operating systems in the last two versions and the latest jdk. I hope that in some way hits somewhere close to your question as I have attempted to interpret it, as well as cover some of your additional concerns - and I may have misinterpreted your intent so correct me if I have blundered. Thanks a lot for the long post best regards bax Best regards, JonB. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Holger Baxmann - bitwind Sent: Saturday, 26 July 2003 7:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source Hi all, i have, in my point of view, a rather pointless question. Seem to be like "Why do i brush my teeth every morning?" It comes out of the so called 'real world': 'Why should one use the source release and whole stuff and knowlegde for building and tes
Re: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source
I've been using the binaries in a university project wich involves clustering. However, I've found and reported bugs/problems that were fixed on cvs. Until the next release was provided, I had to resort to building from CVS to benefit from those fixes. If you don't need something from cvs, I see no reason why you should not use binaries. - Original Message - From: "Holger Baxmann - bitwind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source > > So, is anybody out there who is using _only_ the binary package and has > good experience in doing so ?? --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
RE: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are driving at so let me try and paraphrase your question and answer that. You can come back and tell me I've misinterpreted it. ;) Should someone developing J2EE applications for deployment on JBoss require the JBoss source code? There is usually no need to have the JBoss source code. The examples and paid-for-documentation are sufficient. The prebuilt production release binaries work fine. There is an assumption that you already have experience or at least have familiarity with building J2EE applications. So if you have knowledge on J2EE application development and deployment, you can pick up the extra details on configuring the JBoss specific deployment descriptors should you need to employ these. We've used JBoss for many years without having to delve into the source code to understand how to deploy a web application. As with any J2EE container though, the J2EE spec leaves open some areas for vendor interpretation and JBoss is no different to any other container in this respect. Therefore the examples are necessary to understand how JBoss addresses such gaps or implements the solution. However, this is a different issue to requiring the JBoss source code. I have 10 days worth of training in SilverStream and two large example tutorial manuals covering SilverStream specific development and deployment. I have about the same with the different WebSphere configuration releases. Even with these, unless you have had experience with application servers before, the training doesn't help you the first time the server install doesn't work on site, or something clashes with pre-existing software. At least with JBoss, the subsystems are documented, and relatively transparent in configuration. And you don't usually need to spend another half day re-installing the app server. The source code is only necessary if you believe there is a bug and you feel inclined to track it down. The other users of this open-source product will thank you if you can make things better for them. But that is the co-operative nature of the project/collective. JBoss application deployment is simple and transparent, IMHO. You can usually figure out why something broke, if you know your J2EE. And if things break in the JBoss engine, you can always ask here or at the forums. There is always someone willing to offer their experience. Remember that this is an open-source product. People have spent their free-time contributing and helping out. Constructive criticism is appreciated - doing something to address a shortcoming even more appreciated. Denigrating what someone has laboured over in their own time - probably not in the spirit of open-source. If you do want professional support for JBoss deployments, there are various organisations including JBoss Group LLC who provide such commercial services. I understand they all provide professional quality support as good as, if not better than any commercial organisation. I hope that in some way hits somewhere close to your question as I have attempted to interpret it, as well as cover some of your additional concerns - and I may have misinterpreted your intent so correct me if I have blundered. Best regards, JonB. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Holger > Baxmann - bitwind > Sent: Saturday, 26 July 2003 7:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source > > > Hi all, > > i have, in my point of view, a rather pointless question. Seem to be > like "Why do i brush my teeth every morning?" It comes out of the so > called 'real world': > > 'Why should one use the source release and whole stuff and knowlegde > for building and testing? The binary build seems to be good enough.' > > I know this is a light-stupid question, but i have to argue against. I > am frankly not able to do it at last. All arguments about 'Look the > tests for learning, the test&build make you sure that the whole stuff > is running with exactly defined errors and failures' does not help: 'We > will use the JBoss, we will neither developing for it, nor we have the > time or the money to dive into the deep forest of how JBoss handle his > things' > > So, is anybody out there who is using _only_ the binary package and has > good experience in doing so ?? > > IMHO it is a little bit unprofessional, isn't it? > > my the source be with you > > bax smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[JBoss-user] The Source or not the Source
Hi all, i have, in my point of view, a rather pointless question. Seem to be like "Why do i brush my teeth every morning?" It comes out of the so called 'real world': 'Why should one use the source release and whole stuff and knowlegde for building and testing? The binary build seems to be good enough.' I know this is a light-stupid question, but i have to argue against. I am frankly not able to do it at last. All arguments about 'Look the tests for learning, the test&build make you sure that the whole stuff is running with exactly defined errors and failures' does not help: 'We will use the JBoss, we will neither developing for it, nor we have the time or the money to dive into the deep forest of how JBoss handle his things' So, is anybody out there who is using _only_ the binary package and has good experience in doing so ?? IMHO it is a little bit unprofessional, isn't it? my the source be with you bax --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
