"Enterprise-class" (was RE: Struts, Spring, Tapestry, oh my!)

Erich Pletsch erich at uvnet.net
Thu Aug 11 13:11:50 MDT 2005

   And it's also all in the process of being open sourced.
   Bryan Sant wrote:

On 8/11/05, Michael Torrie [1]<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.

| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
|      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
|  IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net   |


   1. mailto:torriem at chem.byu.edu

More information about the PLUG mailing list