| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Sun Lashes Out at Microsoft, Others Over Spec | |
|
||
| Time: 11:14 EST/16:14 GMT | News Source: Internet News | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
In another indication that high-tech powers are not always on the same page where Web services are concerned, Sun Microsystems this week blasted Microsoft, IBM, BEA Systems and TIBCO for publishing their own specification for Web Services reliability. Sun, along with Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, Oracle, Sonic Software, published a Web Services Reliability (WS-Reliability) specification in January 2003. Microsoft, IBM, BEA and TIBCO this week published the WS-ReliableMessaging specification, which analysts say is different, but equally important. The WS-Reliability approach by Sun and its partners calls for guaranteed "message ordering, message delivery and the removal of duplicate messages." The new WS-ReliableMessaging spec aims to provide the "necessary protocol for ensuring that unreceived and duplicate messages can be detected, and received messages can be processed in the order in which they were sent." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:28:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/16/2003 4:19:34 PM |
|
Sun needs to understand it's place in the tech industry: Irrelevant.
Why do you think they made their own standard? What's worse is, Sun's saviors, IBM and BEA, went with Microsoft for the standard... HAHAHA It's clear to everyone but Sun that Sun dropped the ball on XML/Web Services and Microsoft is about 4 years ahead of the game. Sorry Sun. You lost. Again. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/16/2003 5:18:27 PM |
|
Both Microsoft and IBM have existing Messaging technologies. i.e. MQSeries and MSMQ. It's not clear to me that these other vendors have such technologies, and it's quite possible then that IBM and Microsoft used their prior experience to guide their direction.
I don't know what to think of Sun. I don't understand why they lashed out at this, clearly they must have known that IBM and Microsoft were working on something similar, why didn't they try to resolve these differences sooner? |
| #3 By 531 (64.109.133.45) at 3/16/2003 7:24:57 PM |
| ... um... including Java... |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/16/2003 11:01:05 PM |
|
#7 "copied it"?
Obviously you don't really know anything about .NET. Yes, there were some interesting things in Java, but nothing that was really "new" or revolutionary. Garbage collection was not a new concept, neither was virtual machines or bytecode (though .NET doesn't have bytecode, it has IL, and yes, there's a big difference). Besides, other than a few minor things in the CLR, .NET is completely different, namely the "common language" part of the "Common Language Runtime" -d |
| #5 By 12071 (203.217.62.221) at 3/17/2003 7:13:43 AM |
|
#8 yes copied it - not cloned... it's not an extact copy.... but they took a lot of it's features. What is so "new" and "revolutionary" about .NET? Multiple languages? Nope Java has had that for years. VB finally being an OO language?
No-one is disputing that the .NET framework has been fairly well thought out and hence it allows developers to be more productive.... but what does it offer that is so "new" and "revolutionary"? |
| #6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/17/2003 10:24:37 AM |
|
#9: Java does not have multiple languages. There are some hack projects to squeeze other languages into bytecode, but Sun continuously changes the spec and screws these back-alley projects. There is only the One, True Language for the Java Framework, and that's Java. And as long as Gosling is around, he won't allow other languages. In fact, in interviews, he continues to poo-poo the idea by saying it's "worthless" or "irrelevant" and that cross-platform is the key.
What's new in .NET? - a truly cross-language implementation that allows all the languages to act as equals and cooperate 100%. - good XML support, something Java still doesn't have (JAXP? c'mon, give me a break) - good Web Services support, something the core Java framework doesn't have, or has very poorly (you have to get 3rd party solutions by BEA or IBM) - it's open (EMCA and ISO) which is something that Sun has tried twice and failed at and no, the JCP is not "open" |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/17/2003 10:36:46 AM |
|
chris_kabuki - Java copied from UCSD Pascal.
Think about it. UCSD Pascal was an entire operating environment. The code was compiled down into a psuedo-code and then interpreted at runtime. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/17/2003 10:37:46 AM |
|
More information:
http://www.threedee.com/jcm/psystem/ Even this quote: "Like today's Java, it was based on a "virtual machine" with a standard set of low-level, machine-language-like "p-code" instructions that were emulated on different hardware, including the 6502, the 8080, the Z-80, and the PDP-11. " My god, Java was nothing more than a blatant rip-off! |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 3/17/2003 5:51:57 PM |
|
#11 On the contrary, regardless of your or Gosling's own opinions there are several languages which can be compiled down into java byte code. These are no more of a hack than putting C#, J# and VB.NET into the same form.
- a truly cross-language implementation that allows all the languages to act as equals and cooperate 100%. No, Java has had this for years. It may never have been designed that way whilst .NET was, but regardless of that fact this is not something NEW that .NET has brought. - good XML support, something Java still doesn't have (JAXP? c'mon, give me a break) Java has had XML support for a long time now... and you get packages from SUN, IBM, Apache etc etc. Once again... nothing NEW so far. - good Web Services support, something the core Java framework doesn't have, or has very poorly (you have to get 3rd party solutions by BEA or IBM) Once again, something you've been able to do with Java for a while now... still nothing NEW! Wether you personally believe that .NET allows developers to create web services easier/faster/etc doesn't change the fact this is nothing new. - it's open (EMCA and ISO) which is something that Sun has tried twice and failed at and no, the JCP is not "open" .NET isn't open....parts of C# and the CLR are open but .NET is a proprietary as anything else on the market. Whilst making somehting open may be NEW for Microsoft, opening a language spec is definetely not something NEW that .NET has brought us. So there we have it... you're yet to tell us something NEW or REVOLUTIONARY that .NET has brought. #12 I wasn't the one that was saying that Java is NEW and REVOLUTIONARY unlike anything else ever made whilst .NET is just a blantant copy of several products (or do they call that research). |
| #10 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 3/17/2003 10:02:14 PM |
|
#15: the CLS and CTS are not "hacks", you're only kidding yourself.
- The languages do cooperate 100%. The CLS defines a clear and fully functional spec that allows languages to share types and functionality 100%. Java does not have a cross-language implementation. Byte-code is written specifically with Java in mind. Anything else is a hack and not officially sanctioned by Sun. There are no commercially viable alternatives and every hack project usually gets screwed every time there's a new JVM released. It's as if Sun purposely tries to nose them out. - Java's XML support is still lacking and 3rd parties have lumped implementations after implementations on top of it. Xerces was the king for awhile, and it was still buggy and didn't support half the standards out there. It's certainly *BETTER* today, but still hacked and lumped onto the framework as an afterthought, unlike .NET where it's built into every aspect like Serialization, Remoting, and Web Services. - Web Services Support is horribly lacking in Java. You must use 3rd parties to do it correctly and even hope to interop with any other web services implementation, including basic standard implementations. Sun has done nothing in this regard. IBM is the leader for Java and BEA is a close 2nd. - .NET _IS_ open, the core, relevant parts are standardized and certified. All the rest is value-added and not required to interop with most .NET Programs. Sun has twice pulled Java from ECMA certification and has never attempted ISO standardization like .NET and C# are now already. Sun is intent on keeping Java 100% proprietary and letting others have input only with discretion. What's new in .NET is as I mentioned. Common language system, a complete, standardized, fully intergrated XML system (no other framework has it), a complete, standardized, fully integrated web services platform (no other framework has it), not to metion a dozen other little menutiae things that I would have to look up. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/18/2003 2:13:58 AM |
|
kabuki - "#12 I wasn't the one that was saying that Java is NEW and REVOLUTIONARY unlike anything else ever made whilst .NET is just a blantant copy of several products (or do they call that research). "
Please be consistent. If .NET is a copy is some form of bad thing, then Java being a copy is equally some form of a bad thing. Personally I am not so stupid as to claim either Java or .Net is bad because it based itself upon work done by others in a forward momentum manner. |
| #12 By 12071 (203.217.62.221) at 3/18/2003 4:40:09 AM |
|
<font size=1 color=navy><strong>This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use.</strong></font>
This site is a joke. You tell someone they're wrong and you get your comment removed because they didn't like it. This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at 22:02. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:28:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
