Discussions

News: Interview about Oracle's J2EE IDE Tools Strategy

  1. Last month Oracle made headlines by joining Eclipse and submitting new IDE framework APIs to the JCP. A new interview from IDN with top J2EE tools guy explores why Oracle says Eclipse isn't all it should be, and lays how Oracle intends to use tools to compete aggressively for Java developers.

    Read Oracle Poised To Shake Up J2EE IDE Sector.

    Threaded Messages (16)

  2. Oracle's already shaking up the IDE market - by
    1. Creating a very useful IDE and charging either $995 or $0 for it - your choice.
    2. Oracle's own plug-ins (the Wizards for instance) are already "Two way" isomorphic builders - (a topic I'm addressing in Chapter 7 of the book I'm working on).

    The idea that there might actually be a standard for plug-ins is a terrific and hardly just a view held by Oracle as Vance's sub-headline "Oracle's Problem with Today's Open IDEs" suggests.

    Regards,

    Rich Katz
  3. The man said it himself: Oracle will not help in creating Eclipse a more succesful platform. It merely joined Eclipse to convice Eclipse developers to switch to Oracle's JDeveloper.
    However, I beleive the Oracle's strategy is not going to work; The momentum behind Eclipse and the collaberative effort invested in it, creates a very fast evolving state of the art IDE platform.
    One other thing, Eclipse technology does not enforce process constraints, it is open enough to allow everybody to develop their own process flows. Oracle in this matter, resembles a lot to Microsoft. Most of the development processes introduced by Oracle are database centric, and the reason is obvious. It is enough to have a look at Oracle's BC4J framework to understand.
  4. As "the man" quoted in the article, I would just like to clarify that Oracle's intent in joining Eclipse is not to steal away Eclipse users. Our intent is to allow people who use and like Eclipse to build applications for the Oracle platform (DB, app server, etc.).

    As far as the JDeveloper/JBuilder issue goes, not only are they completely different code bases, the products are actually different as well. JDeveloper takes a different approach at many of the problems in today's development cycle. Just being an IDE gives you similarities with others, but the products are actually quite different if you take a closer look. We are getting more and more JBuilder users switching to JDeveloper every day.

        -ted

    Ted Farrell
    Oracle Corporation

  5. > Ted Farrell
    > Oracle Corporation
    >

    Ted,

    I know one thing that Oracle's Eclipse announcement did: it stopped us dead in our tracks while evaluating JDeveloper. Two days after the announcement, our local Oracle rep made an in-house pitch to us about why we should adopt JDeveloper and unfortunately for him, I asked how the Eclipse announcement affected JDeveloper. He had no clue. He hadn't even heard the announcement. Took the wind right out of his sails. (The other question that "forced him on the rocks" was why Oracle doesn't produce a real pl/sql development tool?)

    All this was fine with me, 'cuz I'm an IntelliJ IDEA fan!

    John
  6. Well as far as a decent PL/SQL development environment, have a look at Oracle9i JDeveloper 9.0.3.
    PL/SQL editor with code insight, PL/SQL debugging including remote debugging, SQL worksheet with explain plan, Wizards for creating database objects, and the ability to publish a PL/SQL stored procedure as a web-service.

    See:
    http://otn.oracle.com/products/jdev/htdocs/database/db_overview.html
  7. Hey John,

    Shay answered your question about PL/SQL development, but I am not sure if you had another question about the positioning of JDeveloper and Eclipse. I don't think the JSR changes anything with regards to choosing JDeveloper or Eclipse. It affects people writing extensions or addins to IDEs, so I am not sure what it was about that which took the wind out of his sails.

       -ted
  8. Thanks, Shay & Ted.

    The Eclipse announcement introduced uncertainty into the equation for us. We started asking questions like, "Why should we buy JDeveloper now, learn it's UI and functions, and then move to Eclipse later on?", and "Is JDeveloper gonna go away after the Oracle Eclipse tools become available?", and "Is there gonna be a migration path from JDeveloper to Eclipse?", and "Are we gonna be forced to use Eclipse when JDeveloper is end-of-lifed?", and "If Oracle is supporting another IDE framework, how long will it be before JDeveloper is end-of-lifed? Seems like a waste of development resources to support two IDEs..." The rep's lack of knowledge did nothing to clear up this uncertainty.

    As a java developer, I don't concern myself very often with writing pl/sql code. That question was asked by our database developers, who were looking for a recommendation from Oracle. They seemed puzzled as to why Oracle hasn't produced a powerful development tool for pl/sql. I have little to no knowledge (or interest, for that matter) in the issue, except that it's an issue.

    As far as the JSR is concerned, I see that as a seperate issue from Eclipse participation and support. JetBrains/IntelliJ also supports the JSR and this would benefit me as an IDEA user if more plug-ins became available. However, conspicuously absent from the list of organizations supporting the JSR is IBM or any other Eclipse member organizations or steward employers. In fact, the JSR supporters are made up of what could be considered competitors to Eclipse: JetBrains with IDEA; Sun with NetBeans/Forte; and, Macromedia with Dreamweaver and HomeSite/Studio (if it survives attempts by MM management to kill it off despite what MM customers want). Eclipse/IBM may not want to do anything that might benefit it's competitors. Getting a JSR to fruition is one thing; getting it implemented in Eclipse is another. I hope it happens, for IDEA's sake.

    John
  9. John, the vote on approving the JSR as a JSR to be pursued by the JCP is quite revealing vis a vis the participation of the IBM/Eclipse and other competitors that seemed to be missing from the original press release.

    See: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=1474

    Notice that IBM voted for it (after noting consultation with Ted) as well as Borland who were the other conspicuous missing player from the original press release.

    This would seem to give the JSR some credibility.

    Mike.
  10. Mike,

    Thanks for pointing that out. That makes me feel better.

    John
  11. 2. Oracle's own plug-ins (the Wizards for instance) are already "Two way" isomorphic builders


    Oh, hay, "Two way" tools are in JBuilder for years, and Oracle just copied that. And JDeveloper is (although now completely revriten by Oracle) just a copy of JBuilder with some Oracle proprietary wizards added.
  12. Oracle Jdeveloper and JBuilder do not share a single line of code since version 9i of JDeveloper was released (more than a year ago). In fact jdeveloper9i is pure java code and no all the mix that is included in JBuilder...
  13. Oracle Jdeveloper and JBuilder do not share a single line of code since version 9i of JDeveloper was released (more than a year ago). In fact jdeveloper9i is pure java code and no all the mix that is included in JBuilder...


    That's true, BUT for JBuilder version 3 and before, when Oracle licensed JBuilder source (versions 1 and 2).

    Still, JBuilder was years before JDeveloper rewritten in pure Java (and is one of the first pure Java IDEs, maybe the first, I am not sure about when NetBeans appeared).

    First all-Java JBuilder was 3.1 for Linux/Solaris and 3.5 for Windows, I think it was year 1999.

    Current version is JBuilder 8.
  14. While I haven't done comparisons between the two products, I do know that to get similar functionality, I would have to purchase JBuilder Enterprise. Borland loses out in a big way on pricing (and certainly its upgrade policies).

    Cheers
    Ray
  15. I have experience with JBuilder 4EE, 6EE, 7EE(evaluated), Eclipse 2 and currently JDeveloper 903. Overall JB7EE == JD903. JD903 has serious advantage for Oracle-based projects: PL/SQL, BC4J, OC4J (and is free within some of 9i packaged products). Also own debug/profiling jvm (JB uses 3rd party ?). Web services, sql brovser, ejb, to/from database schema generators, teem (ie cvs), ant, various wizards, code completition-navigation-formatting, workspace management, screen management, j2ee, deployment, struts - more or less on the same level. Eclipse has better refactoring and amazing screen management, speed (swt) and memory usage; less in j2ee side. None of them have good build-in uml - Oracle has build-in 3 uml types, JB use 3rd party (?) Eclipse has modest Slim plug-in and expensive RR integration.
  16. Again, JBuilder and JDeveloper do not share a single line of code. That has been a fact for a long time. Which is not what you stated in your first message. As for the parts of JBuilder written in different languages, should we consider the new areas adquired from Together?:-) JBuilder is good. JDeveloper is the Best :-)
  17. As for the parts of JBuilder written in different languages, should we consider the new areas adquired from Together?


    Together Control Center is written entirely in Java from the beggining. Currently there is no Java IDE on the market that is not written entirely in Java that I am aware of (except Eclipse but I would consider it also pure Java).

    JBuilder + TCC would be very nice combination if Borland does good job in integrating them and if pricing is fair.