"Enterprise-class" (was RE: Struts, Spring, Tapestry, oh my!)
bryan.sant at gmail.com
Thu Aug 11 13:07:52 MDT 2005
On 8/11/05, Michael Torrie <torriem at chem.byu.edu> wrote:
> This one is an interesting one. Although there are lots of j2ee
> compliant containers and servers, it's all, under the hood, Sun Java.
> So you can pick whatever vendor you want, so long as it is Sun.
> Obviously there are now finally VMs that can run Java bytecode that
> aren't from Sun*, such as IBM, or even GCJ, and eventually we'll have a
> full OSS system. At which point J2EE finally will fit this definition
> of "enterprise-class" that you mention. I think that when most market-
> speakers talk of this "vendor lock-in" thing, they are referring to
> underlying hardware/OS platform. However it is definitely worth
> remembering that the Java platform itself does is one vendor.
Not true in the slightest. IBM, BEA, obviously Sun are very viable
JVM choices. Apache's Harmony project is building a high-quality OSS
JVM/JDK with the help of IBM and Sun. There is no lock-in to Sun's
JVM. Not to mention that Sun's JVM/JDK has always been 100% free (as
in beer) and runs on Windows, Linux, and Solaris. There is absolutely
no vendor lock-in with Java.
More information about the PLUG