Discussions

News: Naked Objects: Deploying your Java Application on .NET

  1. The Naked Objects framework, written in Java 1.1, compiles (as J#) for the .Net platform. This article, the third in the Naked Object Architecture Series, shows you how you can write your application in Java 1.1, then compile it, without modification, for either the Java or .Net platforms.

    Read Naked Objects: Writing an Application in Java and Deploying it on .NET

    Threaded Messages (18)

  2. Java 1.1 ???[ Go to top ]

    Why would I want to get stuck with Java 1.1 and be so far behind the curve with a new application.
  3. Java 1.1 ???[ Go to top ]

    Well, Microsoft generously gives you Java 2 collections, too. Who minds that key methods like ArrayList#addAll aren't implemented ...
  4. Java 1.1 ???[ Go to top ]

    Yup. Now with Java 1.5, there's even more reason not to go back to 1.1
    Steve
  5. Excellent[ Go to top ]

    Nice idea. Saves me learning the .Net APIs.
  6. Or are you just reacting to the "1.1" in the header?

    With Naked Objects you are welcome to write your application in Java 1.4 or 1.5. There's very little reason to - because Naked Objects does all the UI for you. All you need is to capture the business logic and 1.1 is plenty expressive enough for that.

    The point of the article is only that it is perfectly feasible to write business applications in 1.1. And if you do, the applications will be platform independent. If that is of no value to you, then stay with 1.4/5 . And if you want a Swing-compatible UI, then such a viewing mechanism is available for Naked Objects also.
  7. Sure I did. And the feeling is that writing to Java 1.1 in order to keep things platform independent not that easy. We have a critical component that we run using both J2SE and J# and we feel there are a few rough edges. 'catch(Exception)' will not catch any .NET exceptions and as I posted, the Java 2 Collection implementation is a pain (ok, not Java 1.1 so don't use it).

    While it's an option, I don't feel it'll be my preferred one.
  8. If I write in Java, am I not already writing platform independent code? Isn't that the point of Java?
  9. Is Microsoft more capable when developing software, or is the Java community/Sun?

    Is this even up for debate? Maybe M$ should spend some of its money on QA and process improvement rather than marketing...oh wait, then they wouldn't be the richest company in the world.

    It's time consumers wised-up.

    JCD
  10. I don't understand what is the point of deploying applications written in Java on .NET ?
    IS there an OS that supports .NET and do NOT support Java ? No!
    WILL there be an OS that supports .NET and do NOT support Java ? Very unlikely.

    Nakid Objects are realy nice idea but if apps are writen in Java and run on Java, running on .NET is not value add.

    MC
  11. I agree that there is no value to be gained from writing an app in Java and then deploying on .NET. But there are many, many corporations that have a .NET only policy. This is a way of writing an application so that it could be deployed on EITHER platform.
  12. I agree that there is no value to be gained from writing an app in Java and then deploying on .NET. But there are many, many corporations that have a .NET only policy. This is a way of writing an application so that it could be deployed on EITHER platform.


    if a company has a .NET only policy, then why the hell would development be done in Java only to deploy in .NET ..? this still is nop rationale for the project C# and J# are enough programming languages for the .NET framework .. woluld they need Java too?
  13. if a company has a .NET only policy, then why would development be done in Java only to deploy in .NET ..?


    As the article shows, you can use any of the .NET languages to write your business naked objects. So, if you were a .NET shop and had standardized on C#, you could write naked objects in that language, link in the nakedobjects.dll and then deploy. Or you could write them in VB.Net and deploy. Or, if you had developers who knew Java language syntax, they could write them in J#, and deploy.
  14. if a company has a .NET only policy, then why the hell would development be done in Java only to deploy in .NET ..? this still is nop rationale for the project C# and J# are enough programming languages for the .NET framework .. woluld they need Java too?


    If your organisation is .NET-only then you should write your Naked Objects applications in C# (or VB.Net).

    If your organisation is Java-only then write your Naked Objects applications in the latest version of Java.

    If your organisation uses both platforms, or, more significantly, if you are an independent software provider writing software that you might want to deploy in organisations with either policy, then by sticking to Java 1.1 (which, when working with Naked Objects, is really not the restriction it sounds like) your application will work on both platforms.
  15. I don't understand what is the point of deploying

    > applications written in Java on .NET ?

    To double your customer mass perhaps?
  16. Shame on you![ Go to top ]

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnbda/html/bdasamppet.asp?frame=true

    "Microsoft® .NET Pet Shop is a series of application benchmarks comparing the performance and scalability of this .NET Web application to the performance of an equivalent, revised, and fully optimized J2EE™ application developed by the Middleware Company."

    Geez!!!! Shame on you!!! Equivalent?? revised?? fully optimized???

    After selling your soul for some bucks you opened a .NET site. It's just business... (anyways, shame on you!)
  17. SimpleORM runs on Java and .net[ Go to top ]

    MS seems to have done a reasonable job of 1.1 compatibility. One of my users easily ported SimpleORM to .net.

    The main change I had to make was to use a class SArrayList that could either extend the java or .net ArrayList.

    Microsoft do some magic with things like mapping String class to their string primitive. (Which, by the way, uses one instance where as Java uses two instances, one for the class and one for the array.)

    I figure that if it works then why not do it. It reduces the technical risk in chosing .net or java.

    Anthony
  18. Hi,

    It is nice to know that you have the implementation ported to .NET.
    Isn't it too restrictive to stick with the Java 1.1.4 then to use all set of capabilities of 1.4 or 1.5 versions.
    Using just AWT for visualization makes your framework too heavy.
  19. Isn't it too restrictive to stick with the Java 1.1.4 then to use all set of capabilities of 1.4 or 1.5 versions.


    Not really ... it's an internal implementation decision Robert made and there's nothing compelling for the core framework needed beyond 1.1.

    This doesn't preclude business objects from being written in 1.4 or 1.5.

    > Using just AWT for visualization makes your framework too heavy.

    Could you clarify "too heavy"? Do you mean "not web-based" or something else?