The J2EE v .NET 'split' has nothing to do with Web Services


News: The J2EE v .NET 'split' has nothing to do with Web Services

  1. Tom Welsh, editor of 'Web Services Strategies' says that web services is a unique technology of union between competing technologies, not a split. Welsh says that the major vendors see web services as a way to see more business and greater profit from expanding the total size of the market rather than fighting over today's smaller cake.

    Read The J2EE v .NET 'split' has nothing to do with Web Services.

    Welsh is commenting on this article, which was also posted on TSS last week:
    Survey Pegs Microsoft, IBM, Oracle as top Web Services Players.
  2. What was the point of the article?[ Go to top ]

    The author didn't make much sense. He was completely off base in complaining about the 'split' in web services (there is no split!)

    The original article he was complaining about said a Gartner survey reported some shops using (or planning on using) web service preferred implementing them in java (the majority of larger operations) while others (the majority of small & medium sized shops) preferred dotNet, though not all necessarily used what they preferred. This was the 'split' they were talking about. Developers are split pretty even between using the two major platforms for web services. No surprises, nothing controversial. It was a Gartner survey after all.

    Mr. Welch launches into some tirade about "web services are a magick bullet that synergizes the B2B enterprise paradigm value added (bingo!) raison d'etre ... etc., in a Giant BMW Lorry Saloon Car" What the hell's a saloon car anyway? It's not even a common term in Britain, I don't think.

    Was the whole point of the article to provide all with his (quite original) image of a Mini Cooper/Cement Mixer/SUV in the old west?
  3. Agreed. The author goes on and on and doesn't really tell you anything.
  4. I concur with you. This article does not make any sense to me.
  5. What was the point of the article?[ Go to top ]

    I agree that the article is a bit odd in scope. I thought he did a good job explaining some of the background behind initiatives such as WS-I though.