[Mono-list] .Net App Server
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:40:38 -0400
Sorry, I didn't mean to bad mouth JBoss, it does have some
great technology. When I think of success and critical mass
I think of Apache, JBoss may get to that point someday but
BEA, IBM and Oracle are clearly the established leaders.
JBoss's biggest problems IMHO are that:
1) It tries to be J2EE, J2EE is software by committee that
evolves slowly and is pulled in many different directions by
companies with widely varying agendas.
2) Its based on Java. Running an open source server on a
closed source JVM is going to keep a lot of talented open
source hackers from joining the fray. Also Java has some
fundamental problems that .Net addresses.
Building an app server on Mono could result in a completely open
platform that has neither of these problems. For one Mono isn't
trying to be .Net, the attitude of copying what's good and improving
or innovating in the areas that aren't is great. And running
Mono on Linux w/ Apache and MySQL/Postgresql would enable completely
open source server infrastructure.
Something like that has a chance of achieving the level of success of
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Miller [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .Net App Server
> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 13:15, Tom Reilly wrote:
> > Also, all open source
> > app servers (that I know of) are Java based and never
> managed to reach
> > critical mass (mostly, I believe, because of the lack of a
> first class
> > open source Java VM).
> I don't think that's true: JBoss (http://jboss.org) is a very mature
> and very full-featured J2EE server that many people (including myself)
> use in production. It conforms to the full J2EE standard, has support
> for automagical clustering, can hot-deploy across a network,
> etc. There
> are so many cool features to it that I'll never even touch,
> most likely.
> In regards to a Mono app server, it seems that, if all the things that
> are already being worked on are put together thoughtfully, the only
> thing stading between Mono and a theoretical "Mono Application Server"
> is packaging.
> Mono-list maillist - Monofirstname.lastname@example.org