«

How does FastCGI compare against java Apps running in java app servers
like TomCat, Sun One, WebLogic and WebSphere? Is there a business case
for switching from CGI to Java? Performance? Productivity? Features?
Object orientation? Code Reuse?

Any opinions?

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:01:07 +0800, Charles Handy
<chppxf1@NOSPAM_yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> How does FastCGI compare against java Apps running in java app servers
> like TomCat, Sun One, WebLogic and WebSphere?

That depends on how your CGI apps are written. If its in QBASIC
running on apache on an NT box then probably the websphere
solution would be faster. If its Perl or Python then you might
not see much difference. If its C/C++ you might even find the CGI
route faster.

> Is there a business case for switching from CGI to Java?

You can make a business case for just about anything if you
try...

> Performance?

See above

> Productivity?

Perl/Python CGI will almoist certainy develop faster than Java.
C++ is about the same IME

> Features?

Maybe, Java's built in networking/security features are a big
plus, maybe the biggest plus.

> Object orientation?

Nope, you can do that in Perl and certainly in Python (or Ruby).

> Code Reuse?

Nope, that's much more about project organisation than
programming language.

> Any opinions?

Lots but I'm trying to stay objective!

Bottom line is: Does what you do now work for you? If so, don't
fix what's not broken...

Alan G.

(Alan Gauld) writes:

> > Is there a business case for switching from CGI to Java?

As someone said, "java is great for engineering next generation
solutions to enable maximization of developer income by means of
enhanced buzzword use".

> > Features?

> Maybe, Java's built in networking/security features are a big plus,
> maybe the biggest plus.

For most of the other answers, Tcl scores about where Perl and Python
do, give or take some here and there. Here, it is worth mentioning
that Tcl has a very nice security architecture of its own, that you
can control from Tcl itself quite easily.

> > Object orientation?

> Nope, you can do that in Perl and certainly in Python (or Ruby).

Or Tcl with an extension like [Incr Tcl].

> Bottom line is: Does what you do now work for you? If so, don't fix
> what's not broken...

Excellent suggestion.

--
David N. Welton
Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/

Charles Handy wrote:
>
> How does FastCGI compare against java Apps running in java app servers
> like TomCat, Sun One, WebLogic and WebSphere?

A (fast)CGI program compared to the actual Java program may not be
much of a difference, depending on the program of course. What is
a *huge* difference is that the Java app is running inside an
*application server*. A (J2EE) Application Server provides a
rich environment on which to base your scalable enterprise applications:
- security
- connectivity
- scalability (performance, clustering)
- maintainability / managability
- error reporting/logging
- component based (EJBs)
- database connectivity and object persistence
- transactions
- ...

All of these are standardized in some way (as part of J2EE).
In theory you can move your J2EE application to a different
environment running on a different vendor's app server without
much sweat.

You don't have any of this readily available when writing (fast)CGI
applications; you have to implement all of these yourself.

--Irmen de Jong

Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Irmen de Jong <irmen@-NOSPAM-REMOVETHIS-xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>
>>>How does FastCGI compare against java Apps running in java app
>>>servers like TomCat, Sun One, WebLogic and WebSphere?
>>
>>
>>A (fast)CGI program compared to the actual Java program may not be
>>much of a difference, depending on the program of course. What is
>>a *huge* difference is that the Java app is running inside an
>>*application server*. A (J2EE) Application Server provides a
>>rich environment on which to base your scalable enterprise applications:
>>- security
>>- connectivity
>>- scalability (performance, clustering)
>>- maintainability / managability
>>- error reporting/logging
>>- component based (EJBs)
>>- database connectivity and object persistence
>>- transactions
>>- ...
>
>
> Someone mentioned buzzwords elsewhere in this thread.

Very true

But the fact remains, that you get the above mentioned things
in one way or another when using an application server.
Wether you *need* them is a totally different matter.
As somebody else pointed out, if what you do now works for you,
don't fix what's not broken...

>>All of these are standardized in some way (as part of J2EE).
>>In theory you can move your J2EE application to a different
>>environment running on a different vendor's app server without
>>much sweat.
>
>
> That is, after you spent three weeks trying to figure out the correct
> classpath, if one even exists.

That's why I said "in theory".
Classpath issues are the least of your problems.
(and really should not take you more than an hour to figure out).

>>You don't have any of this readily available when writing (fast)CGI
>>applications; you have to implement all of these yourself.
>
>
> Hey, it could be fun.

I cannot imagine how it can be fun to design, build and test your
own XA transaction layer or object persistence.

But, for simple web applications, it *is* fun to build them from
the ground up. You learn a lot by doing so.

--Irmen de Jong

In article <3efed46f$0$49115$>,
Irmen de Jong <irmen@-NOSPAM-REMOVETHIS-xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Irmen de Jong <irmen@-NOSPAM-REMOVETHIS-xs4all.nl> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>How does FastCGI compare against java Apps running in java app
>>>>servers like TomCat, Sun One, WebLogic and WebSphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>A (fast)CGI program compared to the actual Java program may not be
>>>much of a difference, depending on the program of course. What is
>>>a *huge* difference is that the Java app is running inside an
>>>*application server*. A (J2EE) Application Server provides a
>>>rich environment on which to base your scalable enterprise applications:
>>>- security
>>>- connectivity
>>>- scalability (performance, clustering)
>>>- maintainability / managability
>>>- error reporting/logging
>>>- component based (EJBs)
>>>- database connectivity and object persistence
>>>- transactions
>>>- ...
>>
>>
>> Someone mentioned buzzwords elsewhere in this thread.
>
>Very true
>
>But the fact remains, that you get the above mentioned things
>in one way or another when using an application server.
>Wether you *need* them is a totally different matter.
>As somebody else pointed out, if what you do now works for you,
>don't fix what's not broken...
>
>>>All of these are standardized in some way (as part of J2EE).
>>>In theory you can move your J2EE application to a different
>>>environment running on a different vendor's app server without
>>>much sweat.
>>
>>
>> That is, after you spent three weeks trying to figure out the correct
>> classpath, if one even exists.
>
>That's why I said "in theory".
>Classpath issues are the least of your problems.
>(and really should not take you more than an hour to figure out).
>
>>>You don't have any of this readily available when writing (fast)CGI
>>>applications; you have to implement all of these yourself.
>>
>>
>> Hey, it could be fun.
>
>I cannot imagine how it can be fun to design, build and test your
>own XA transaction layer or object persistence.
>
>But, for simple web applications, it *is* fun to build them from
>the ground up. You learn a lot by doing so.
>
>--Irmen de Jong
>

Me, too.

Kevin, Irmen, et al. have already covered all the high points.
Here are my reactions: in big-department, J2EE-committed groups,
there often is utter incomprehension about what we're saying. When
we seriously propose CGI (or FastCGI) with a "toy" language like
Python or Tcl, they see that as the rough equivalent to grinding
flour by hand, rather than buying a loaf of bread at the grocery.
Some decision-makers don't even believe existence proofs that CGI-
based approaches can meet requirements.

Application servers do have some wonderful functionality; it's
quite hard to find EJB service, load-leveling, some senses of
object persistence, ... as supplied by Tomcat, WebSphere, in the
"scripting language" world.

Java-oriented people underappreciate the extent to which applica-
tion servers *need* such built-ins, simply because development is
so clumsy with them. VERY few of the sites that have paid for
Web clustering *need* it, in any sense that I can understand,
except to compensate for problems the clustering-aware software
itself creates. More generally, application server-based projects
oriented to Java simply have big, big start-up costs. It can be
quicker writing a new little logging facility in Perl than just
trying to get the application server working at all. That's what
I've seen, at least.

Be very careful about the "security" argument. Yes, Java is a
"secure" language--in very specific senses. The security require-
ments of your particular situation might be entirely orthogonal.
In the dimensions that matter to you, Perl or Tcl might be *better*
than Java in supplying the kind of security you're after.
--

Cameron Laird <>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html

Irmen de Jong <irmen@-NOSPAM-REMOVETHIS-xs4all.nl> writes:

>A (fast)CGI program compared to the actual Java program may not be
>much of a difference, depending on the program of course. What is
>a *huge* difference is that the Java app is running inside an
>*application server*. A (J2EE) Application Server provides a
>rich environment on which to base your scalable enterprise applications:

Outstanding points. For trivial applications, CGI is fine, but beyond
that we get into the need for this infrastructure. Creating it from
scratch (or bundling it into each application) is a pain and demands
ongoing maintenance. It's great for "tinkerers" but doesn't make
sense for someone wanting to concentrate on building applications.

A Python solution for all of this is Zope.

--kyler

Kyler Laird <> writes:

> Outstanding points. For trivial applications, CGI is fine, but beyond
> that we get into the need for this infrastructure. Creating it from
> scratch (or bundling it into each application) is a pain and demands
> ongoing maintenance. It's great for "tinkerers" but doesn't make
> sense for someone wanting to concentrate on building applications.
>
> A Python solution for all of this is Zope.

There are several solutions for Perl, and I'd imagine that there's at
least one for Tcl, but that's sort of beside the point.

Going the Java route buys you some things. There are a lot of Java
developers out there, and with baseline-competent management, Java can
do a decent job of protecting you from less competent developers.
(Much as I like Perl, the same cannot be said for it.) There is a
standard interface between the web application and the container that
can handle the more annoying problems such as object persistence,
session state, and authentication, not to mention more difficult
things like load balancing and clustering.

At the same time, Java has a lot more overhead. You'll need more
hardware and probably more support staff, and the easy availability of
Java support staff is no indication that they're any good. And then
you get to run into the single biggest Java headache. Because the
implementation involves everything running in a virtual machine, and
many code libraries are closed-source, with just the interface and the
compiled bytecode available, it can be extremely difficult to track
down a bug: even identifying with any certainty whether the issue lies
in your code, in the library you're calling, or in the JVM can be a
pain.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that if you're comparing FastCGI to
Java based solely on performance, you're ignoring a whole host of
criteria that can be equally as important: development speed,
available support, and scalability, just to name a few. In
particular, if you've got programmers and admins on staff who can do
good work with FastCGI, don't force them to use Java instead; the
results will probably be horrible at first, and any performance
improvement you expect to see by switching to Java will be more than
offset by the learning curve.

My advice would be to use Java for a project or site that is large
enough to afford the overhead, and to use a language-based approach
(mod_perl, Mason, Zope) otherwise. If you're the only person working
on the project, it's almost certainly too small to be worth the
overhead.

Charlton

Wojciech Kocjan <> writes:

>> Outstanding points. For trivial applications, CGI is fine, but beyond
>> that we get into the need for this infrastructure. Creating it from
>> scratch (or bundling it into each application) is a pain and demands
>> ongoing maintenance. It's great for "tinkerers" but doesn't make
>> sense for someone wanting to concentrate on building applications.

>That depends. Many companies want to write their own base modules, so
>that they can be extended to meet their needs. This is very time
>consuming, but the upside is that you know the code perfectly and are
>able to fix bugs/enhance the code very fast.

Sure, and I do this. But I do it under Zope where I don't have to
create from scratch (and maintain) anything that is not specific to
my projects.

--kyler

(Paul Boddie) writes:

> wrote in message
> news:<20030630120924.209$>...

> > Switching a working application to a new language is about the
> > greatest possible crime there is against code reuse.
>
> "We believe in code reuse. Apart from the system we just threw away,
> of course."

It's also possible that the old application just barely works, and
that it will take more work to bolt new things onto the side of it
than to rewrite it from scratch. If we're talking about a 15-year-old
C application that had a web interface bolted onto it a few years
back and which has been undergoing continual change and occasional
expansion, I could certainly see a case for rewriting the whole mess.

Charlton