NetBeans 6 delivers great updates to the Matisse GUI builder. Spend a few minutes with Roman Strobl and get an expert briefing on what's new and what has changed. (sponsored)
In this, the third and final installation of Andres' Introduction to Groovy series, you learn about how Groovy handles variable numbers of arguments, named parameters, currying, and more about Groovy operators. Including, some new operators.
Swing Fuse (actually just Fuse), is a framework designed to make it easier to create your own custom desktop components. In this article, Daniel Spiewak shows you how to get started and provides sample source code you can download.
Willam Louth shows how he uses JXInsight Probes to investigate probable performance issues with code bases that he is not familiar with. He also highlights possible pitfalls in creating a benchmark, as well as in the analysis of results.
Replies:
31 -
Pages:
3
[
123
| Next
]
Threads:
[
Previous
|
Next
]
By any measure, it's great news. Just read this..
...Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in total consideration.
As far is I know, it seems, the netbeans folks are working to provide a "PHP IDE", similar to the "Ruby IDE".
Looks like Sun is very aggressive under Jonathan's stewardship.
open solaris -> open glassfish -> open netbeans
hmm... somehow they are excelling in the art of making money from open source projects.
As far as I know most Derby (=JavaDB, =Cloudscape) developers are employed by IBM, and Sun is second (no independent developers). IBM support for Cloudscape stops in September this year or so. Will IBM be interested to pay Derby developers afterwards? Probably not. IBM just bought DataMirror, and DataMirror own PointBase (another Java SQL database, commercial - I worked for them before, and as far as I know they are profitable). So IBM 'owns' two Java databases at the moment. Sun offers commercial support for JavaDB, but I don't think this is profitable (or will be anytime soon).
Most likely, IBM will scale back on Derby at the end of the year, while Sun will still support it (as an embedded easy-to-use Java database). So development activity on Derby will go down. It will be in 'support mode' starting next year, and slowly disappear in a few years.
This is just my view of course. I am working on a Derby competitor: http://h2database.com
> As far as I know most Derby (=JavaDB, =Cloudscape)
> developers are employed by IBM, and Sun is second (no
> independent developers). IBM support for Cloudscape
> stops in September this year or so. Will IBM be
> interested to pay Derby developers afterwards?
> Probably not. IBM just bought DataMirror, and
> DataMirror own PointBase (another Java SQL database,
> commercial - I worked for them before, and as far as
> I know they are profitable). So IBM 'owns' two Java
> databases at the moment. Sun offers commercial
> support for JavaDB, but I don't think this is
> profitable (or will be anytime soon).
mmm.. Thanks for the information.
But i thought DB/2 as the premier database offered by IBM. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Sure! IBM didn't directly buy Cloudscape (=Derby). First, Informix bought Cloudscape, then IBM bought Informix. I don't think IBM was interested in Cloudscape at all. They just got it, and then didn't know exactly what to do with it (sorry - again this is my interpretation). First, they made Cloudscape 'more compatible' with DB/2, then they released it as open source (probably after talking to Sun).
> Will this have any impact in the java development
> environment?
Minor impact, save for below.
> Will software development houses prefer the
> combination of "glassfish + netbeans + mysql"?
Yes, if only because they can get support for the whole kit from Sun. Support from Sun is the only thing new in a decision matrix over why someone may choose MySQL over something else. And I don't see anyone abaondoning MySQL because of Sun (barring some dramatic change).
> And these developments brings another question:
> Will this have any impact on the JavaDB project,
> which Sun packaged alongwith jdk 6?
I don't see any real change whatsoever. Sun decided to bundle JavaDB with the JDK, as long as they do that, they have some reasonable obligation to support it. Now, as I understand it, JavaDB is reasonably stable, so it probably doesn't need a whole lot of maintenance.
Whether they choose to continue to support JavaDB in JDK 7 is clearly up in the air, but bundling and shipping JavaDB is much easier I think than bundling and shipping MySQL with the JDK.
Both NetBeans and Glassfish both ship with JavaDB. NetBeans uses it for sample code and better "out of box" experience. But GF actually relies on the JavaDB for interenal operations. I don't see Sun casually tossing that away to replace it with MySQL, simply because java code is a better cross platform. Requiring MySQL for GF would simply make it "harder" to use and install, and the use of JavaDB is totally appropriate in this case.
Finally, of course, Sun has a vested interest in maintaining a pure Java DB presence for the embedded market and in the RIA market (JavaFX with JavaDB running in the browser with local state is attractive to many).
So, I don't see MySQL trumping JavaDB in these roles anytime soon, and I see Sun maintaining and promoting JavaDB for some time.
Honestly, I don't think it is a good move from Sun (especially considering the upcoming recession). They already have a descent database and most developers don't care about which database they use. Some of our users do care; but only to require Oracle. I can think of better ways to spend 1 billion $ (ie. stock market buying opportunities are coming).
Jean-Marie Dautelle - Marlboro, MA
-- Javolution: Everything should be made as simple as possible...
-- JScience: But not simpler!
Nope. Whichever way you count, I'm sure Oracle's got more. I'm less aware person, and yet I can count: TimesTen, InnoDB (the underpinning of MySQL, BTW), BerkeleyDB, Oracle.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure what it is that Sun now owns.
I believe the question is not if JavaDB will be supported in the future or if JavaDB will be replaced by MySQL in the JDK.
Rather I hope that Sun considers bundling Java/Glassfish with MySQL and promote J-LAMP instead of LAMP in order ton get a foot into the world of ISPs and vitual shared hosting?
Qil.Wong: I wouldn't want to argue with you about the naming. I anyway have a more diverse service mix in mind. Acronym-wise something in the lines of J-L/S-A/G/T-M/D-P as mentioned in this post: http://www.jroller.com/dk/entry/lt_followup_on_jlamp
Sun to acquire MySQL
URL: James Selvakumar
At 7:41 AM on Jan 17, 2008, James Selvakumar wrote:
Fresh Jobs for Developers Post a job opportunity
...Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in total consideration.
To read more, click here
Sun now has a complete stack of products with an operating system, application server, database etc..
Will this have any impact in the java development environment?
Will software development houses prefer the combination of "glassfish + netbeans + mysql"?
And these developments brings another question:
Will this have any impact on the JavaDB project, which Sun packaged alongwith jdk 6?
31 replies so far (
Post your own)
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
Interesting news, the mySQL is very nice thing.But how about the php?
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
As far is I know, it seems, the netbeans folks are working to provide a "PHP IDE", similar to the "Ruby IDE".Looks like Sun is very aggressive under Jonathan's stewardship.
open solaris -> open glassfish -> open netbeans
hmm... somehow they are excelling in the art of making money from open source projects.
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
> JavaDBAs far as I know most Derby (=JavaDB, =Cloudscape) developers are employed by IBM, and Sun is second (no independent developers). IBM support for Cloudscape stops in September this year or so. Will IBM be interested to pay Derby developers afterwards? Probably not. IBM just bought DataMirror, and DataMirror own PointBase (another Java SQL database, commercial - I worked for them before, and as far as I know they are profitable). So IBM 'owns' two Java databases at the moment. Sun offers commercial support for JavaDB, but I don't think this is profitable (or will be anytime soon).
Most likely, IBM will scale back on Derby at the end of the year, while Sun will still support it (as an embedded easy-to-use Java database). So development activity on Derby will go down. It will be in 'support mode' starting next year, and slowly disappear in a few years.
This is just my view of course. I am working on a Derby competitor: http://h2database.com
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
> Will this have any impact on the JavaDB project,> which Sun packaged alongwith jdk 6?
I believe, this was not very successful project anyway. Right?
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
> As far as I know most Derby (=JavaDB, =Cloudscape)> developers are employed by IBM, and Sun is second (no
> independent developers). IBM support for Cloudscape
> stops in September this year or so. Will IBM be
> interested to pay Derby developers afterwards?
> Probably not. IBM just bought DataMirror, and
> DataMirror own PointBase (another Java SQL database,
> commercial - I worked for them before, and as far as
> I know they are profitable). So IBM 'owns' two Java
> databases at the moment. Sun offers commercial
> support for JavaDB, but I don't think this is
> profitable (or will be anytime soon).
mmm.. Thanks for the information.
But i thought DB/2 as the premier database offered by IBM. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
> DB/2 as the premier database offered by IBM.Sure! IBM didn't directly buy Cloudscape (=Derby). First, Informix bought Cloudscape, then IBM bought Informix. I don't think IBM was interested in Cloudscape at all. They just got it, and then didn't know exactly what to do with it (sorry - again this is my interpretation). First, they made Cloudscape 'more compatible' with DB/2, then they released it as open source (probably after talking to Sun).
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
Ah..That means IBM is the only software company with "Three" database solutions....
-DB/2
-Cloudscape
-Pointscape
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
> Will this have any impact in the java development> environment?
Minor impact, save for below.
> Will software development houses prefer the
> combination of "glassfish + netbeans + mysql"?
Yes, if only because they can get support for the whole kit from Sun. Support from Sun is the only thing new in a decision matrix over why someone may choose MySQL over something else. And I don't see anyone abaondoning MySQL because of Sun (barring some dramatic change).
> And these developments brings another question:
> Will this have any impact on the JavaDB project,
> which Sun packaged alongwith jdk 6?
I don't see any real change whatsoever. Sun decided to bundle JavaDB with the JDK, as long as they do that, they have some reasonable obligation to support it. Now, as I understand it, JavaDB is reasonably stable, so it probably doesn't need a whole lot of maintenance.
Whether they choose to continue to support JavaDB in JDK 7 is clearly up in the air, but bundling and shipping JavaDB is much easier I think than bundling and shipping MySQL with the JDK.
Both NetBeans and Glassfish both ship with JavaDB. NetBeans uses it for sample code and better "out of box" experience. But GF actually relies on the JavaDB for interenal operations. I don't see Sun casually tossing that away to replace it with MySQL, simply because java code is a better cross platform. Requiring MySQL for GF would simply make it "harder" to use and install, and the use of JavaDB is totally appropriate in this case.
Finally, of course, Sun has a vested interest in maintaining a pure Java DB presence for the embedded market and in the RIA market (JavaFX with JavaDB running in the browser with local state is attractive to many).
So, I don't see MySQL trumping JavaDB in these roles anytime soon, and I see Sun maintaining and promoting JavaDB for some time.
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
$1B seems like a lot for a company that made only 50 mil in revenues last year and which can convert only 1% of its customers to paying ones.I hope Sun has some good game plan here that will provide value.
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
Honestly, I don't think it is a good move from Sun (especially considering the upcoming recession). They already have a descent database and most developers don't care about which database they use. Some of our users do care; but only to require Oracle. I can think of better ways to spend 1 billion $ (ie. stock market buying opportunities are coming).-- Javolution: Everything should be made as simple as possible... -- JScience: But not simpler!
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
Nope. Whichever way you count, I'm sure Oracle's got more. I'm less aware person, and yet I can count: TimesTen, InnoDB (the underpinning of MySQL, BTW), BerkeleyDB, Oracle.Come to think of it, I'm not sure what it is that Sun now owns.
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
I believe the question is not if JavaDB will be supported in the future or if JavaDB will be replaced by MySQL in the JDK.Rather I hope that Sun considers bundling Java/Glassfish with MySQL and promote J-LAMP instead of LAMP in order ton get a foot into the world of ISPs and vitual shared hosting?
http://www.jroller.com/dk/entry/bundling_java_glassfish_with_mysql
Cheers,
Dieter
Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
LAMP is a word that is created before java is open sourced, and now it is more reasonable to say "LAMJ".Re: Sun to acquire MySQL
Qil.Wong: I wouldn't want to argue with you about the naming. I anyway have a more diverse service mix in mind. Acronym-wise something in the lines of J-L/S-A/G/T-M/D-P as mentioned in this post: http://www.jroller.com/dk/entry/lt_followup_on_jlampCheers,
Dieter