Microsoft, JBoss link server software

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Brett Roberts, Sep 27, 2005.

  1. from
    http://news.com.com/Microsoft, JBoss link server software/2100-7344_3-5883498.html?tag=nefd.top

    "Two companies on opposite sides of the open-source philosophical divide,
    Microsoft and JBoss, have signed a partnership to make their server software
    work together better. Microsoft and JBoss said Tuesday they'll work to make
    JBoss' Java application server software work well with Microsoft's Windows
    and higher-level software. The companies said they will continue to compete
    in the market for application servers, which link Web applications to
    back-end databases and other systems. Products from the two companies are
    similar in purpose, but very different in design. The JBoss application
    server, based on Java, runs on Windows, Linux and Unix systems. Microsoft's
    Windows-based application server tools, based on the company's .Net
    programming model, are part of its Windows Server operating system."

    <snip>

    Brett Roberts
    Microsoft NZ
     
    Brett Roberts, Sep 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brett Roberts

    Ron McNulty Guest

    This seems to be a very short-on-specifics article.

    Integrating Active Directory is good if you want to run on Windows - but
    goes against the Java philosophy of write once, run anywhere. Is there a
    Linux product that is similar? Can we expect to see a standardisation of
    directory services across platforms?

    Web standards collaberation - Great, but neither MS or JBoss are the owners
    of web standards - W3C surely?

    Integration with JBoss/Hibernate/SQL Server? I've been developing with that
    combination for 18 months now, and can't name one "must have" feature. Can
    anyone think of one?

    Integration with MOM - er no thanks guys. The thought of having to wait for
    an upgrade of a closed-source product so that I can administer a new release
    of an open source product makes me very uneasy.

    Just to state my position, I develop in a mix of ASP, Java, Hibernate & TSQL
    and use SQL Server as the database. I generally develop & test on Windows
    XP, and deploy on Win2k (ASP) and Linux (JBoss/Java).

    My wish list for interoperability is short and sweet:

    1. Change windows to use the '/' as the directory delimiter
    2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.

    These are the things that most frequently cause problems in my environment,
    but won't change any time soon.

    Still, its good to see some thawing of the cold war...

    Regards

    Ron

    "Brett Roberts" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > from
    > http://news.com.com/Microsoft, JBoss link server software/2100-7344_3-5883498.html?tag=nefd.top
    >
    > "Two companies on opposite sides of the open-source philosophical divide,
    > Microsoft and JBoss, have signed a partnership to make their server
    > software work together better. Microsoft and JBoss said Tuesday they'll
    > work to make JBoss' Java application server software work well with
    > Microsoft's Windows and higher-level software. The companies said they
    > will continue to compete in the market for application servers, which link
    > Web applications to back-end databases and other systems. Products from
    > the two companies are similar in purpose, but very different in design.
    > The JBoss application server, based on Java, runs on Windows, Linux and
    > Unix systems. Microsoft's Windows-based application server tools, based on
    > the company's .Net programming model, are part of its Windows Server
    > operating system."
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Brett Roberts
    > Microsoft NZ
    >
    >
    >
     
    Ron McNulty, Sep 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brett Roberts

    Steve H Guest

    On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:45:13 +1200, Ron McNulty wrote:
    > My wish list for interoperability is short and sweet:
    >
    > 1. Change windows to use the '/' as the directory delimiter


    iirc, ntkrnl takes either - its the shell guys who **** that up (try it in
    some shell windows, it barely works)

    > 2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.


    again ntkrnl does it

    ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
    people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt & ThIS.tXt
    being diffrent files.

    --------
    Steven H
     
    Steve H, Sep 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Brett Roberts

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:45:13 +1200, Ron McNulty wrote:

    > This seems to be a very short-on-specifics article.


    Aren't they all :)

    >
    > Integrating Active Directory is good if you want to run on Windows - but
    > goes against the Java philosophy of write once, run anywhere. Is there a
    > Linux product that is similar? Can we expect to see a standardisation of
    > directory services across platforms?


    You can already use Active Directory for directory and authentication
    stuff in a lot of scenarios.

    I've set up up Debian machines using nss_ldap via GSSAPI (krb5) to have
    single sign on working against Active Directory accounts, and kerberised
    SSH between all your Linux machines is pretty cool.

    Java can natively do GSSAPI stuff, Apache and Mozilla can do SPNEGO
    transparent authentication, and Sun has Solaris addons for Apache and Java
    to handle SPNEGO. And with a commercial library you can get Java
    servers (eg Tomcat) on Linux doing all this as well.

    Where there is a gap though is for an open source Java library for
    SPNEGO against AD. I suspect this is what would be happening with JBoss
    and MS.

    Hopefully it easily transfers to Tomcat though - possibly unlikely being
    that JBoss is under the (L)GPL and Tomcat is Apache licensed. It depends
    how they end up working it out.

    The reason I say hopefully is that we are migrating off JBoss as a
    platform for our product on to plain ol Tomcat.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Steve H wrote:
    >>2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.


    > again ntkrnl does it
    > ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
    > people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt & ThIS.tXt
    > being diffrent files.


    other than potentially being able to have a lot more files(assuming you
    hit the number of files it takes to use all combinations of
    letters/numbers/"acceptible file name charactors", ie infinite*) in the
    same directory, what benefit does making windows understand case
    sensitivity in file names?

    *assuming infinite file name length.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 28, 2005
    #5
  6. Brett Roberts

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:11:58 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Steve H wrote:
    >>>2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.

    >
    >> again ntkrnl does it
    >> ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
    >> people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt &
    >> ThIS.tXt being diffrent files.

    >
    > other than potentially being able to have a lot more files(assuming you
    > hit the number of files it takes to use all combinations of
    > letters/numbers/"acceptible file name charactors", ie infinite*) in the
    > same directory, what benefit does making windows understand case
    > sensitivity in file names?


    For native english speakers it doesn't seem like much benefit at all, but
    apparently in other languages the rules for character case can get a lot
    more complicated and code that is case insensitve has to add a whole lot
    of complicated rules.

    When Unix was first developed, computers didn't really have a lot of extra
    resources to waste on translating cases etc. A case sensitive filesystem
    didn't need to do any of that. Unix programmers have carried on with that
    approach - in their eyes less code means less bugs and less complicated
    special cases for other languages.

    A user that only uses Windows and doesn't create any web content wouldn't
    get any benefit from case sensitive filesystems - except for very esoteric
    stuff that only some programmers might care about. Users that do
    interoperate with other systems and/or create web content have to ensure
    they do things consistently though for interoperability though. ie a web
    designer on Windows that uploads files to an Apache server on Unix needs
    to take care with case so they don't end up with broken links even though
    they worked during testing on their Windows machine.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 28, 2005
    #6
  7. AD. wrote:
    >>>>2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.


    >>>again ntkrnl does it
    >>>ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
    >>>people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt &
    >>>ThIS.tXt being diffrent files.


    >>other than potentially being able to have a lot more files(assuming you
    >>hit the number of files it takes to use all combinations of
    >>letters/numbers/"acceptible file name charactors", ie infinite*) in the
    >>same directory, what benefit does making windows understand case
    >>sensitivity in file names?


    > For native english speakers it doesn't seem like much benefit at all, but
    > apparently in other languages the rules for character case can get a lot
    > more complicated and code that is case insensitve has to add a whole lot
    > of complicated rules.


    > When Unix was first developed, computers didn't really have a lot of extra
    > resources to waste on translating cases etc. A case sensitive filesystem
    > didn't need to do any of that. Unix programmers have carried on with that
    > approach - in their eyes less code means less bugs and less complicated
    > special cases for other languages.


    ta muchly, seems to make sense.

    > A user that only uses Windows and doesn't create any web content wouldn't
    > get any benefit from case sensitive filesystems - except for very esoteric
    > stuff that only some programmers might care about. Users that do
    > interoperate with other systems and/or create web content have to ensure
    > they do things consistently though for interoperability though. ie a web
    > designer on Windows that uploads files to an Apache server on Unix needs
    > to take care with case so they don't end up with broken links even though
    > they worked during testing on their Windows machine.


    heh, I struck that years ago, and couldn't figure out what the hell was
    going on, since then I use all lower case for things, unless it is a
    once off, then I keep it as it was for err, lazyness sake(images that
    I've uploaded to show someone, and I havent changed the file name from
    poxy mspaint using all caps for the file extension.)

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 28, 2005
    #7
  8. Brett Roberts

    Ron McNulty Guest

    The only reason I would go to case sensitive is because there are a lot of
    Unix/Linux boxes out there that are already case sensitive. It is the
    general case if you like.

    I'd be equally happy if all the Unix variants would go case insensitive, but
    that seems more difficult. Duplicate files would abound. Also modern
    development languages (Java, C#) are adopting case sensitivity as standard.
    Go with the flow?

    Regards

    Ron
     
    Ron McNulty, Sep 28, 2005
    #8
  9. AD. wrote:
    >>Integrating Active Directory is good if you want to run on Windows - but
    >>goes against the Java philosophy of write once, run anywhere. Is there a
    >>Linux product that is similar? Can we expect to see a standardisation of
    >>directory services across platforms?

    >
    > You can already use Active Directory for directory and authentication
    > stuff in a lot of scenarios.
    >
    > I've set up up Debian machines using nss_ldap via GSSAPI (krb5) to have
    > single sign on working against Active Directory accounts, and kerberised
    > SSH between all your Linux machines is pretty cool.
    >
    > Java can natively do GSSAPI stuff, Apache and Mozilla can do SPNEGO
    > transparent authentication, and Sun has Solaris addons for Apache and Java
    > to handle SPNEGO. And with a commercial library you can get Java
    > servers (eg Tomcat) on Linux doing all this as well.
    >
    > Where there is a gap though is for an open source Java library for
    > SPNEGO against AD. I suspect this is what would be happening with JBoss
    > and MS.
    >
    > Hopefully it easily transfers to Tomcat though - possibly unlikely being
    > that JBoss is under the (L)GPL and Tomcat is Apache licensed. It depends
    > how they end up working it out.
    >
    > The reason I say hopefully is that we are migrating off JBoss as a
    > platform for our product on to plain ol Tomcat.


    A Microsoft Partner Vintela provides a solution in this space too -
    Vintela Single Sign-on for Java (VSJ)
    http://www.vintela.com/products/vsj/product_details.php

    Lets Java/J2EE servers use Kerberos tickets to do AuthZ and AuthN

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Brett Roberts

    Rob J Guest

    In article <1d1rujdkrnu85$>,
    says...
    > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:45:13 +1200, Ron McNulty wrote:
    > > My wish list for interoperability is short and sweet:
    > >
    > > 1. Change windows to use the '/' as the directory delimiter

    >
    > iirc, ntkrnl takes either - its the shell guys who **** that up (try it in
    > some shell windows, it barely works)
    >
    > > 2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.

    >
    > again ntkrnl does it
    >
    > ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
    > people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt & ThIS.tXt
    > being diffrent files.


    Most people don't want it to.

    Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are
    the most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.
     
    Rob J, Sep 28, 2005
    #10
  11. Brett Roberts

    Steve H Guest

    On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:14 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    > In article <1d1rujdkrnu85$>,
    > says...
    >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:45:13 +1200, Ron McNulty wrote:
    >>> My wish list for interoperability is short and sweet:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Change windows to use the '/' as the directory delimiter

    >>
    >> iirc, ntkrnl takes either - its the shell guys who **** that up (try it in
    >> some shell windows, it barely works)
    >>
    >>> 2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.

    >>
    >> again ntkrnl does it
    >>
    >> ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
    >> people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt & ThIS.tXt
    >> being diffrent files.

    >
    > Most people don't want it to.
    >
    > Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are
    > the most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.


    ok, that is just crossing the line bud !! :)

    i 'grew up' on visual basic, loved the fact that vAr = VaR no matter where
    i put the capitals.

    i used '_foo' for private variables and 'Foo' for their public getters /
    mutators. i think at one stage i even used 'm_foo' for something - at least
    i didnt go down the 'szFoo' route (ok it had its place a decade ago).

    then i found the 'dark side', a place where 'foo' and 'Foo' (even 'fOo')
    are compleatly diffrent things - to compound my new found love of the dark
    side i reciently had a project (vb.net project) and lets just say iam happy
    its over

    bring on case sensitave programming languages :)

    --------
    Steven H
     
    Steve H, Sep 29, 2005
    #11
  12. Brett Roberts

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:14 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    > Most people don't want it to.
    >
    > Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are the
    > most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.


    Ambiguity is seldom a good thing in a programming language. All you are
    doing is creating opportunities for inconsistancies that make a
    programmers job harder. A coder scanning code for a certain name might
    overlook ones written a different way.

    Making programmers jobs harder also leads to greater chances of those
    programmers producing bugs.

    Having case sensitive variables, functions, classes etc makes enforcing
    naming standards easier and any mistakes show up earlier. Do you want
    obvious bugs or subtle bugs?

    As for filesystems - it's neither here nor there really. I happily use
    systems with both, and it's only when they have to interoperate that it
    becomes a pain. And for interoperability, the best approach is to just
    act like you're using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 29, 2005
    #12
  13. AD. wrote:
    > And for interoperability, the best approach is to just
    > act like you're using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.


    you sure about that?
    I would tend to think it would be the other way around...

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 29, 2005
    #13
  14. Brett Roberts

    Shane Guest

    On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > AD. wrote:
    >> And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
    >> using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

    >
    > you sure about that?
    > I would tend to think it would be the other way around...


    if the case sensitive filesystem strikes code written in non case
    sensitive 'style' there'll be trouble

    If the non case sensitive filesystem strikes case sensitive 'style' it
    wont give a poo


    Head hurts... somebody beer me :\

    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, Sep 29, 2005
    #14
  15. Shane wrote:
    > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>AD. wrote:
    >>
    >>>And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
    >>>using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

    >>
    >>you sure about that?
    >>I would tend to think it would be the other way around...

    >
    >
    > if the case sensitive filesystem strikes code written in non case
    > sensitive 'style' there'll be trouble
    >
    > If the non case sensitive filesystem strikes case sensitive 'style' it
    > wont give a poo


    see ADs reply, that is what I meant.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 29, 2005
    #15
  16. Brett Roberts

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > AD. wrote:
    >> And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
    >> using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

    >
    > you sure about that?
    > I would tend to think it would be the other way around...


    OK my statement was a little vague or ambiguous* as to it's meaning. I can
    see there would be a few possibly ways of acting like that that would
    actually hurt interop.

    Maybe I should've used an example like: always use the exact case when
    referring to files elsewhere instead of relying on the OS to translate
    your case for you.

    * Another example of where clarity is better than ambiguity :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 29, 2005
    #16
  17. AD. wrote:
    >>>And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
    >>>using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.


    >>you sure about that?
    >>I would tend to think it would be the other way around...


    > OK my statement was a little vague or ambiguous* as to it's meaning. I can
    > see there would be a few possibly ways of acting like that that would
    > actually hurt interop.
    > Maybe I should've used an example like: always use the exact case when
    > referring to files elsewhere instead of relying on the OS to translate
    > your case for you.
    > * Another example of where clarity is better than ambiguity :)


    heh, thanks for that... I was thinking as a user of an Os that doesnt
    care about upper and lower that it would be kinda stupid to code for a
    case sensitive system, if it is to be used on both... as when it came to
    mine, if there were both upper and lower in the same directory, it would
    just over write one with the other... I think I see what was meant
    however with say always coding in lower case, and making sure all is in
    lower case, and all will work on all systems... unless it is some gay
    arse system that only works with caps, in which case your errr, buggered.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 29, 2005
    #17
  18. Brett Roberts

    Rob J Guest

    In article <1127953477.9f11dd9ab6ea97ab9272c9b7538e9c51@teranews>,
    says...
    > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:14 +1200, Rob J wrote:
    >
    > > Most people don't want it to.
    > >
    > > Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are the
    > > most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.

    >
    > Ambiguity is seldom a good thing in a programming language. All you are
    > doing is creating opportunities for inconsistancies that make a
    > programmers job harder. A coder scanning code for a certain name might
    > overlook ones written a different way.
    >
    > Making programmers jobs harder also leads to greater chances of those
    > programmers producing bugs.
    >
    > Having case sensitive variables, functions, classes etc makes enforcing
    > naming standards easier and any mistakes show up earlier. Do you want
    > obvious bugs or subtle bugs?
    >
    > As for filesystems - it's neither here nor there really. I happily use
    > systems with both, and it's only when they have to interoperate that it
    > becomes a pain. And for interoperability, the best approach is to just
    > act like you're using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.


    Most of my comment is based on my encounter with the C programming
    language.

    As far as case sensitive function names go, you are forced to use the
    coding standard devised by the author of the function library you are
    using. Compare toupper and ToUpper and tell me which is the more
    readable. The former being the built in standard in C and pretty typical
    of the standard of C in general.

    Case sensitive filenames and case sensitive variable or constant names
    have the same limitations. Morons decide it is clever to have two
    variables or files that have the same name with different case. Then,
    apart from the obvious ambiguity in English (they sound the same when
    you pronounce them), you can easily stuff up by using the wrong one in
    places in your software or filesystem.
     
    Rob J, Sep 29, 2005
    #18
  19. Brett Roberts

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:08:34 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    > Most of my comment is based on my encounter with the C programming
    > language.
    >
    > As far as case sensitive function names go, you are forced to use the
    > coding standard devised by the author of the function library you are
    > using. Compare toupper and ToUpper and tell me which is the more readable.
    > The former being the built in standard in C and pretty typical of the
    > standard of C in general.
    >
    > Case sensitive filenames and case sensitive variable or constant names
    > have the same limitations. Morons decide it is clever to have two
    > variables or files that have the same name with different case. Then,
    > apart from the obvious ambiguity in English (they sound the same when you
    > pronounce them), you can easily stuff up by using the wrong one in places
    > in your software or filesystem.


    So you're really complaining about a bad case of naming standards in
    one language and working with moron prgrammers - not case sensitivity.

    Say you did actually implement a more readable naming system - A case
    sensitive language stops those moron same programmers breaking the naming
    system by using the unreadable versions because their code will stop
    working.

    And most case sensitive languages these days do use readable naming
    conventions in their libraries.

    I don't see the problem.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 29, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <uXj_e.14754$>,
    "Ron McNulty" <> wrote:

    >Integrating Active Directory is good if you want to run on Windows - but
    >goes against the Java philosophy of write once, run anywhere.


    Well, Java itself doesn't exactly conform to that philosophy, so no big
    loss. :)
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 30, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Johannes Rosenstock
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,184
    Johannes Rosenstock
    Aug 28, 2004
  2. Sam
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    917
    =?Utf-8?B?Um9uYXRob3NwaWNl?=
    Jun 3, 2005
  3. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,305
  4. kamalsirsa

    jms and email application on jboss

    kamalsirsa, Dec 6, 2007, in forum: Software
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    727
    kamalsirsa
    Dec 6, 2007
  5. arunjith

    HTTP load balancing issue with jboss

    arunjith, Jul 12, 2010, in forum: Software
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,047
    arunjith
    Jul 12, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page