Questions and Skepticism

By eweek  |  Posted 2005-12-12 Print this article Print

Why is the perception out there that you guys dont support it?

I think its because of the way people demo it. Its not our job to give people a religion. Its not our job to tell people this is the right way or this is the wrong way. Its not my job to convert people; its my job to ship software that people want to use.

Speaking of religious issues, you came out a bit skeptical about JBI [Java Business Integration]. What was that all about?

It was not clear to me exactly what was going on. I looked at what JBI was, and, for me, it was like, "Wow, that looks kind of like what we did in Indigo." However, when I talked to my friends in the Java community, they said they wanted to achieve the same things they wanted to achieve in Indigo, which was to have a single way to do messaging. The problem was, in my mind, its a little too "meta."

When we did Indigo, we basically said, "Were going to own the box. Were going to say, We know Windows programmers or .Net programmers want to program with messaging." So we said, "Were going to figure out what the right way to program messaging is, and thats the way were going to do it."

Click here to read more about Microsofts progress with Indigo. And we will make sure that we have a clean message to the developer community about where were going and what were going to do. Specifically, the things we needed to look at around MSMQ [Microsoft Message Queuing] were a lot of infrastructure out there and a lot of programs. So we said, "Were going to make sure that the MSMQ API, which is specific to MSMQ, wasnt ready to be generalizable to JSON or POX or whatever." So, well make sure that MSMQ developers have a clean path to get into the Indigo world. Thats the way its going to work. So, we just have one method, and we write these adapter thingies to spit them out as arbitrary formats.

With JBI, I look and I think, "Man, how does that link to JMS [Java Message Service]? Do I need both? Do I want both?" It just wasnt clear to me. In some ways, as some Java guy termed it, it is basically a metacommunity. And I am at a point in my life where Id rather not go meta; Id rather just build the right thing and use the right thing. But thats where the Java community was. The user base seems pretty happy, even though IBM and BEA [Systems Inc.] arent jumping on yet. So its not for me to judge.

When you made your blog post on this, you got a lot of responses. Did anything come back to change your thinking at all?

Well, I was genuinely puzzled as to how to think about this for EJB [Enterprise JavaBeans] versus the servlet. For me, I look at the servlet architecture and API and say, That would not have been a horrible place to start.

With EJB, theres a lot of "cruft" [a term for old, dusty code] and would maybe not be where I would go, but servlets didnt look so bad. Servlets have a non-HTTP-specific model—at least the last time I looked at them, before I worked at The Firm—that has a general notion of a request or a reply. Everybody knows it. And everybody who knows it, by the way, likes it a lot. So maybe if I ran the Java world, I wouldve generalized servlets a little bit more to satisfy some of these needs.

But instead, its like, lets do yet another one of these "gimundo" architectures. And its yet another thing I have to have a security spec for because I have to secure it. I have to [know] how transactions relate. Its a lot of work.

I cant say it sucks. It just may not have been the approach I wouldve taken.

Next Page: The open-source world.


Submit a Comment

Loading Comments...
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters

Rocket Fuel