IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer

Discussions

News: IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer

Bookmark and Share Get thread feed

  1. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer (39 messages)

    IBM is planning a new edition of Websphere application server called WebSphere Express, intended to be aggressively priced and tailored for small/midsize businesses. One potential price model is $2,000 per CPU and $25 per user, as opposed to the current $8,000 per CPU for a single-server version and $35,000 per CPU for the enterprise version.

    Read IBM WebSphere Express On tap(CRN).
    Reply to this

    Threaded Messages (39)

  2. AppServer with full J2EE?[ Go to top ]

    The article doesn't mention that it will offer full J2EE functionality. E-Promag had an
    article
    on WebSphere Express in September, which states "The Express product won’t offer any EJB capabilities and the administration and initial onramp features are simplified".
    Also, BEA (according to the latest article) may also offer a lightweight server. Both, as I read it, will not provide the full J2EE functionality in all server editions.

    I then wonder whether JBoss etc. would not be a cheaper/better solution for companies that seek a low-cost server.

    Martin.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  3. AppServer with full J2EE?[ Go to top ]

    <Martin>
    I then wonder whether JBoss etc. would not be a cheaper/better solution for companies that seek a low-cost server.
    </Martin>

    Or Resin.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  4. AppServer with full J2EE?[ Go to top ]

    "intended to be aggressively priced and TAILORED for small/midsize businesses"

    Watch out for those typos. The correct spelling is c-r-i-p-p-l-e-d.

    So now IBM offers a JBoss competitor for $35,000 per CPU and a Tomcat competitor for $2,000 per CPU. I have trouble seeing a bunch of people converting from Tomcat to Websphere Express, although I can definitely see a lot of companies trying to downgrade their Websphere licenses. I have seen several large companies using Websphere as overpriced servlet engines.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  5. AppServer with full J2EE?[ Go to top ]

    BEA already offers WebLogic Express, which is just a special license that disables EJB, JMS and 2PC
    Reply to this Reply to original

  6. AppServer with full J2EE?[ Go to top ]

    Or what about JRun4, a certified J2EE 1.3 Compatible Appserver with clustering capabilities, from about $900 a CPU.

    I think IBM is missing the mark here for a J2EE app-server between enterprise class and open-source.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  7. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    No EJB support in Websphere Express as far as I know supposedly aimed at competing with tomcat.. jboss...
    Ah well
    Later,
    Leo de Blaauw
    Reply to this Reply to original

  8. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Guys what about Sun ONE Appserver 7 Platform Edition? Its free J2EE certified (which is sometimes important for managers... well mine anyway :-]) and has EJB (I think)... Any thoughts?

    Cheers

    Smythe...
    Reply to this Reply to original

  9. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Sun ONE Appserver 7 is far better than previous releases. I am more than happy with what I got for Free from SUN ONE7.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  10. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    My thought exactly! The admin "console" for Sun ONE ver 7 is very easy to use as well kinda reminds me of JRUN. Think they got it right this time! Why would anyone want to pay for the IBM or BEA equivalents at this end of the market even if their implementations are "low cost"?

    Cheers...

    Smythe
    Reply to this Reply to original

  11. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    SUN One is free ONLY for developers...

    https://www2.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=16231&article_count=24#63141
    Reply to this Reply to original

  12. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    The thread says the Platform version is free for Deployment but does not have the same features as Standard Edition.The Standard Edition on the other hand is free only for developers .
    Reply to this Reply to original

  13. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Let's be clear: Sun ONE App Server, Platform edition is free, free, free, for development *and* deployment. And, with reference to another thread here, it is fully J2EE 1.3 certified, including distributed transactions, JMS, EJB2, etc. etc.

    Go grab it: I've been playing with it since early beta (I work for Sun) and it's just great

    Regards,
    David
    Reply to this Reply to original

  14. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    It is important to remember that (at least in part)IBM is targeting its large base of Domino customers who will continue to use the Domino platform, but also have a need for Servlets / JSPs. There are many companies who are perfectly happy building web applications that do not utilize EJBs, and need the packaged integration that WAS includes for Domino (LTPA for Single Sign On, etc.).
    Just some thoughts...
    Reply to this Reply to original

  15. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    I think Pramati costs the same as this new agressive marketing price by IBM ...
    How is Sun One pricing ? Can i use it for free for commercial use also ?
    I thought it is free just for home use
    Reply to this Reply to original

  16. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Sunone Platform Edition is free:
    https://www2.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=16231&article_count=24#63141
    Reply to this Reply to original

  17. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Is it just me or is this press release simply announcing "IBM plans Servlet-Engine-Only version of Websphere"?

    Both IBM and BEA (and everyone else) have had low-cost servlet-engine-only versions of their products for the last 2 years.....


    -Nick
    Reply to this Reply to original

  18. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    If they still include a transaction manager, this offer would be entirely fine with me.
    I wouldn't mind losing EJBs, when I still can have distributed transactions spanning JDBC, JMS, JDO or JCA using servlets only. Even MDBs can be simulated very well inside a servlet container (done that, been there).

    AFAIK there is no portable way of intercepting the JNDI access to data sources in order to enlist them with the current transaction. The solutions I saw for Tomcat or Jetty so far, didn't look to promising, although i'd be very glad to hear from one including not only JDBC but also JMS or JCA.

    Given the EAI abilities WAS has, it's still a fair deal, given one doesn't lose those abilities as well.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  19. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    If they still include a transaction manager, this offer would be entirely fine with me. I wouldn't mind losing EJBs, when I still can have distributed transactions spanning JDBC, JMS, JDO or JCA using servlets only. (...) The solutions I saw for Tomcat or Jetty so far, didn't look to promising, although i'd be very glad to hear from one including not only JDBC but also JMS or JCA.
    </quote>

    The Tomcat 4.1 + Tyrex 1.0 combo works nicely, although resource configuration is rather cumbersome. I've never tried JCA resources, but according to its documentation Tyrex does support them. Jetty's standard distribution does not even feature JNDI resources, but why not use JBoss 3.0 as Jetty + JNDI + JTA + JCA combo?

    Concerning transaction managers: I'd like to hear experiences with distributed transactions in real-life scenarios, no matter if programmatic via JTA or declarative via EJB. I consider XA a main selling point of "big iron" application servers, so are they worth their money - WebLogic, WebSphere, Oracle 9iAS? Is there a definitive advantage compared to JBoss 3.0, JRun 4, Tyrex 1.0?

    IMHO such downgraded offers like WebSphere Express (wasn't there a similar WebSphere 3.0 Standard Edition?) or WebLogic Express don't make sense. Basically, they are bloated web containers - large, complex, and overpriced. For web applications without EAI, you're definitely better off with a decent, lightweight web container like Tomcat or Resin. There are many appropriate solutions available that are free or bargains - no need for several thousand dollar license fees. And I shudder if I think of >100 MB downloads...

    Let's drive it by requirements: If you just need a J2EE web application server providing JSPs, Servlets, and JNDI resources - take Tomcat 4.1 or Resin 2.1. If you also need a sophisticated transaction manager - take Tomcat 4.1 + Tyrex 1.0 or JBoss 3.0. If you need JMS - add e.g. SwiftMQ to Tomcat or Resin. If you need EJB - take JBoss 3.0 or JRun 4. Of course, choose a persistence toolkit if you need to, etc.

    Juergen
    Reply to this Reply to original

  20. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    Concerning transaction managers: I'd like to hear experiences with distributed transactions in real-life scenarios, no matter if programmatic via JTA or declarative via EJB.
    </quote>
    We deal with XA scenarios everytime we do something asynchronously, in fact. Consider a JMS-message that leads to some work in the data base. When that work fails, you don't really want the message to be consumed, do you? Enter XA.
    The XA transaction rolls back everything and JMS tries it one more time. If it fails again that the message should be sent to a dead-letter-queue for further investigation.
    This feature is also a life-saver for some data bases' problems with serialising transactions properly.

    <quote>
     I consider XA a main selling point of "big iron" application servers
    </quote>

    Not true anymore. JBoss is capable of XA transactions. So is at least one JDBC-driver for mySQL and JORAM ( www.objectweb.org/joram) as an open-source JMS provider.

    HTH
    Reply to this Reply to original

  21. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    Not true anymore. JBoss is capable of XA transactions. So is at least one JDBC-driver for mySQL and JORAM ( www.objectweb.org/joram) as an open-source JMS provider.
    </quote>

    I did not mean to imply that there aren't any XA-capable solutions in the free and bargain categories, not at all! Quite on the contrary, the availability of the latter was my starting point...

    Tyrex 1.0 is perfectly capable of handling distributed transactions, for example in a Tomcat 4.1 bundle. Resin 2.1 also has XA support, although it is rather bare-bones, without sophisticated recovery in case of a Resin crash. And there's JBoss 3.0 of course, and JRun 4, etc.

    Luckily, XA-capable JDBC drivers are becoming a commodity too. MySQL, DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, etc. And many J2EE servers allow distributed transactions spanning non-XA datasources or even Drivers, one phase commit for these of course.

    I consider XA a main SELLING point of "big iron" application servers. Marketing does not necessarily have anything to do with facts... I simply wonder whether there's any technical advantage of e.g. WebLogic's transaction manager, compared to the above mentioned ones. Or is it just WebLogic's nice admin console, user manual, and sales people? ;-)

    Simply put, why should a techie choose a several thousand dollar heavyweight like WebLogic over a free or bargain leightweight like Tomcat 4.1 + Tyrex 1.0, JBoss 3.0, Resin 2.1, or JRun 4? I'm not talking about political resp. management-driven decisions but about pure technical facts.

    Juergen
    Reply to this Reply to original

  22. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    Simply put, why should a techie choose a several thousand dollar heavyweight like WebLogic over a free or bargain leightweight like Tomcat 4.1 + Tyrex 1.0, JBoss 3.0, Resin 2.1, or JRun 4? I'm not talking about political resp. management-driven decisions but about pure technical facts.
    </quote>
    After some RTFM there seems to be at least one compelling reason to choose WebLogic:
    They offer special adaptors for resources implementing the XA interface in an usual way, e.g. the older Oracle-drivers. After reading their mailing lists I've got the impression, they take it as a challenge to enable XA wherever possible. IIRC, the only notable exception was Oracle AQ.
    And no, they didn't give me money for saying this ;-)
    Reply to this Reply to original

  23. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Oops. It should have read "unusual way".
    Reply to this Reply to original

  24. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    No Wonder Scott McNealy is against all these Open source projects. When techies and management start asking questions about what is the necessary of Weblogics and Webspeheres when we have JBOSS how would IBM and BEA inturn SUN would make money.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  25. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    what is the necessary of Weblogics and Webspeheres when we have JBOSS
    </quote>

    Ahem, maybe it's only me, but I'm not a great fan of JBoss, and I don't really understand why everybody's talking about e.g. WebLogic vs JBoss. IMHO JBoss is not easy to configure if you need to do something beyond WAR file dropping, like datasources. You have to dig into the documentation for quite a while to achieve rather simple things. OK, it's an open source product, no focus on documentation, but that's not the point: I don't want to have to study a whole book for setting up an application server.

    Tomcat 4.1 and Resin 2.1 are far easier to handle, configuration is straightforward and easy to learn for newbies. OK, Tyrex is more cumbersome, but still easier than JBoss. Tomcat's and Tyrex' documentation is sometimes sparse but always to the point. Resin's is actually very well-structured, beyond what you would expect from a 500 USD product.

    In my experience, J2EE web application servers without EJB support (like Tomcat and Resin) tend to be much easier to handle, while still having lots of goodies. The complexity of configuration is significantly lower, as indicated by the size of the documentation and the number of config files. I advise everyone to stick to such a lightweight server if you simply don't need the extra features of a heavyweight!

    Juergen
    Reply to this Reply to original

  26. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    You are not alone :-)
    I never agreed with JBoss pitch as WebLogic Killer. I don't think any sensible developer would say JBoss is even comparable to weblogic in ease of use and maturity. How often you see some one using JBoss for first time up and running with his example EJB's running in less than a day?

    SunOne7 (Free Platform Edition for deployment) really rocks. Documentation is pretty good and the SunOne7 is really ready for production deployments this time :-)
    Reply to this Reply to original

  27. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <Kumar>
    How often you see some one using JBoss for first time up and running with his example EJB's running in less than a day?
    </Kumar>

    I did in less than an hour (and most of that was spent downloading from a slow Sourceforge site) with JBoss 3.0.4/Tomcat. How hard is it?

    - Download JBoss
    - Unzip JBoss
    - Start JBoss
    - Copy your file (EAR/WAR) into deploy directory

    How can this possibly be considered difficult?

    Ryan
    Reply to this Reply to original

  28. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    OOOPS where is my console? Look up at Quick Startup guide and try using console :-)
    Reply to this Reply to original

  29. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    - Download JBoss
    - Unzip JBoss
    - Start JBoss
    - Copy your file (EAR/WAR) into deploy directory

    How can this possibly be considered difficult?
    </quote>

    Of course simple WAR file dropping is simple with most containers. But didn't you have to setup any datasources or other resources? IMHO this is not really simple to figure out with JBoss. Have a look at Resin or Tomcat 4.1, it's much simpler there - and particularly easy to find in the documentation.

    Juergen
    Reply to this Reply to original

  30. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    No Wonder Scott McNealy is against all these Open source projects.


    Where did you get the idea that Scott is against these Open Source projects? Steve Ballmer yes, but not Scott.

    Sun has contributed more lines of code to Open Source projects than all the other vendors combined.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  31. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Where did you get the idea that Scott is against these >Open Source projects? Steve Ballmer yes, but not Scott.


    I should have said against Jboss rather than Open Source. Go and check Jboss.org
    Reply to this Reply to original

  32. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    JBoss in particular are already Sun's best defense against Microsoft .NET


    Did JBoss help J2EE case? I don't think so. To promote J2EE the Major requirement is that we need
    1. A Good (and Cheap too) App Server which really works for beginer.
    2. An app server which has pretty good documentation.

    JBoss is none of these. I haven't seen a developer who could get JBoss working properly in first couple of days and JBoss sells documentation.

    Anyway now that We have SunOne7 which is free(Standard Edition) and has pretty good documentation why do we need JBoss(99% of J2EE developers aren't interested in App server code)?
    Reply to this Reply to original

  33. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Kumar -

    <quote>
    1. A Good (and Cheap too) App Server which really works for beginer.
    2. An app server which has pretty good documentation.
    </quote>

    I would argue that for (1.) above, you really only need:

    1.) A Good (and Cheap too) App Server which really works.

    I personally think that these are in reasonable supply- Pramati, EA Server, Orion, and yes JBoss.

    There are often grumblings that J2EE app servers should be easy for beginners. I can't think of any reason why this should be a requirement to promote J2EE.

    Cheers
    Ray
    Reply to this Reply to original

  34. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    I personally think that these are in reasonable supply- Pramati, EA Server, Orion, and yes JBoss.
    </quote>

    And for the majority of J2EE web applications: Tomcat 4.1 and Resin 2.1! Both are decent and well documented J2EE web containers with everything most J2EE web developers will ever need: built-in HTTP server, Servlet 2.3, JSP 1.2, JNDI resources, JTA transactions. IMHO they comply perfectly with both of Kumar's requirements, if you ignore EJB which most J2EE web applications do not need anyway.

    <quote>
    There are often grumblings that J2EE app servers should be easy for beginners. I can't think of any reason why this should be a requirement to promote J2EE.
    </quote>

    There should be app servers that you can get up and running within minutes, without too specific knowledge. For example, if you know Tomcat 4.x, setting up Resin 2.1 is a breeze - far simpler than setting up JBoss 3.0, especially when dealing with datasources and transactions.

    Simple setup anf configuration is not only important for newcomers to the world of web applications in general but also for people new to J2EE. The latter are often familiar with other web/enterprise technologies like Apache/CGI, IIS/ASP, or .NET - and wonder why in the J2EE world even simple tasks seem to be so complicated!

    Juergen
    Reply to this Reply to original

  35. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    Juergen -
    I can absolutely see your point. I find Orion to be the easiest J2EE app server to set up, whether its for servlets and other web based components, or for EJBs and that end of things (more along my line of work). Give me Orion and Sap DB and I am very happy.

    Cheers
    Ray
    Reply to this Reply to original

  36. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    IBM should just refund all the money users paid for WebSphere. Just admit the tecnhnology failure, like Oracle did...

    I think it is time IBM should OEM WebLogic or Borland Enterprise Server if they really care about their customers.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  37. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    We are running WebSphere on several customer systems and we are happy with it. What kind of problems have you experienced with WebSphere?
    Reply to this Reply to original

  38. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    "We are running WebSphere on several customer systems and we are happy with it. What kind of problems have you experienced with WebSphere? "


    Sorry, If I sounded bitter, but my problems with WebSphere started with J2EE standards and installation.

    WebSphere 3.5 and 4.0 did not fully support EJB 2.0 specs and "hot" deployment was troublesome.

    WebSphere installation was very difficult and did not support Windows XP.

    I have worked with Weblogic and Borland Enterprise Server prior to working with WebSphere, thus, I suppose expected IBM to have simliar functionality.

    Don't know what Websphere is doing today, but, simply I just had enough of it...
    Reply to this Reply to original

  39. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    WebSphere 3.5 and 4.0 did not fully support EJB 2.0 specs

    > and "hot" deployment was troublesome.

    Yes, I agree, IBM has been very slow to support new specification levels. One reason why I like it is probably because of the neat integration with the websphere studion application developer, which makes roundtrip times for coding and testing very fast.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  40. IBM plans low-cost J2EE AppServer[ Go to top ]

    I do not think IBM's WebSphere is a failure. IBM has marketed WebSphere as an entire platform. WebSphere Application Server, WebSphere MQ, WebSphere Portal Server, WebSphere Edge Server, ect. IBM's entire eBusiness is built on WebSphere.

    "Just admit the tecnhnology failure, like Oracle did... "

    This is highly unlikely. This comment has no value.

    I do understand the frustrations with WebSphere and its inability to keep up with the latest J2EE standards. The latest releases do solve this, but installation is not always trivial, especially on Linux. IMHO, DB2 is the most difficult part of the installation for WebSphere Application Server Advanced Edition. Once you are able to successfully install DB2 and create the WAS database, the actual WebSphere Application Server installation is rather "easy".

    As for WebSphere Express, well I am not sure. I find WebSphere to be very stable and maybe customers will find the EJB-less version attractive with its reduced cost simply, because WebSphere has proven to be stable with a large company to support it. In addition, IBM has partnerships with CRM and ERP vendors with servers that run under WebSphere Application Server. That gets a lot of top managers' attention.

    What ever the reason why IBM has decided to release WebSphere Express, it is still hard to win a technical arguement over the open-source JSP/servlet engines.
    Reply to this Reply to original