This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz
by Hugo Pinto.
Original Post: JBoss AOP vs. Rickard vs. The World on TSS
Feed Title: Hugo Out There
Feed URL: http://sedoparking.com/search/registrar.php?domain=®istrar=sedopark
Feed Description: Welcome to my blog. It happened. I succumbed to the vanity exercise that a weblog is and started my own one. Here youll find information and thoughts (some worth reading, some not) on Java, J2EE, Software Architecture, Music and Parapolitics
...is a way-too-cool discussion to be missed. Don't miss
this.
I guess the JBoss-themed discussions are now the state of the
art for rant-blogging, so I'll add a couple of lines of my own.
I
use/dig/promote JBoss since it was named EJBoss (and was actually not more
that Marc's mock-up code for EJB 1.0) and had it's only list on eGroups
(now yahoo groups). I believe it was the end of 1999. I remember the whole
story of Rickard's famous interceptor-based design for 2.0, the complete
re-write, and the cool architecture thereafter. I ever wrote a couple of
lines back then, that are still on the server's codebase. I remember when
things started to cool down between Marc and Rickard, and when their close
collaboration split off - and hey, up to this point it's pretty normal
open-source, people come and go, just as I did, just as Rickard did. And
up to this point, there was little business around the server (Marc had a
professional services company back then, - Telkel or somethink sounding
like it, I believe - that flopped), and JBoss Group The Company was still
a mirage.
Boundaries start to blur when JBoss Group is formed.
Still today, many people cannot make the distintion between JBoss (the
server) and JBoss Group (the company), and I am still not sure if Marc
intended it to be this way or not. Marc created the JGB after the Telkel
flop, and it was a company that would provide services over the codebase.
Turns out that this time the momentum was correct, and it took off fine.
Actually, the average seat price for trainings is so high that I'm
surprised it did, but OK, good for JBG. Anyway, the this was that there
was JBoss, the server, free, and there was a company named JBoss Group,
that employed occasionaly the core JBoss developers, splitting revenue, to
deliver certified services over the codebase. The only thing this company
should have that made it special over other companies delivering services
over JBoss was that it was owned and managed by the JBoss creator Marc
Fleury (wich also is the brand's trademark owner).
Then came the
certification issue: Marc always upheld that it was his intention to
certify JBoss as soon as Sun would let him. And with the latest revision
of the JCP, Sun actually DOES allow to get open-source products certified.
The problem is - Sun says - that JBoss is a for-profit organization, and does
not qualify for free certification. Marc replies "gee, this Sun guys
really don't like us! They're afraid will kill the J2EE market with a free
certified server", and blames Sun over it. BUT WAIT A MINUTE! JBoss is not
for profit! Not JBoss THE SERVER. Marc's company is. But he lets it pass
(amongst other Sun-JBoss discussions, but never mind those, this public
argument is enought for here). And this is the point where I got sure that
there was "Marc's private agenda" written all over it.
And with JBoss 4 (with it's ultra-cool AOP features), this became clear.
Marc wants to stay in the grey area, where the server is not really
certified (he is happy with "compatible", altought I don't know, nowadays,
what it is compatible with... EJB 2.0? IIOP? Servlets? Wich versions?) and
he can blame Sun for it, at the same time that they improve the non-J2EE
features instead of pushing the not-so-cool compatibility flag. It's so
easy. JBoss is not certified because Sun won't let them certify it because
they say the server is for-pay, while they said it's free. Only problem is
that Sun is (awaringly) not refering to the server but to the company. And
Marc is (also awaringly) letting this pass away, because the blured
boundary between JBoss Group and JBoss The Server is so convenient for
him. In the end, he says they would certify JBoss happily paying for the
certification if somebody supported the cost, but they still don't have
the money. And the circle is closed.
Couple of months ago, I asked
on TSS these same questions, out in the open. Marc e-mailed me in private
(I won't disclose the mail) and replied in a very pissed off way (as usual
in him) - but did not address the questions I had posted.
JBOSS is
not 100% J2EE compatible. There is, I believe, a series of minor issues,
such as CORBA compatibility, that are still lacking in implementation (and
that hardly anyone uses). However, I believe that JBoss is one of the most
compatible servers out there, probably above Websphere, rivalling with
Weblogic and the rest of the gang. I use it, and 3.2 looks really solid.
For J2EE applications, JBoss is in fact my first choice.
Core
Developers Network enters the arena. And some very important issues rise.
What makes JBoss Group more qualified than CDN to certify JBoss, besides
the ownership of the brand by Marc? With the entry of the CDN in the
marketplace, JBoss Group is what is always should have been: just
another JBoss-services company - which, by the way, should have as
many right of using the JBoss brand as CDN - after all, Marc sould use the
JBoss brand ONLY WITHIN THE CODEBASE AND THE PROJECT, not on his own
private company.
Now everyone has a choice on where to get services
and support. More JBoss companies will rise. And this is when things start
to get interesting. This is when open-source projects start to mature.
Thanks for your time.
Hugo.
By the way, be sure to read the comments on this post.
Previous Topic
