IBM releases WebSphere Application Server Community Edition V2.1


News: IBM releases WebSphere Application Server Community Edition V2.1

  1. On 29 July 2008, IBM announced WebSphere Application Server Community Edition V2.1. WebSphere Application Server Community Edition is the IBM open source-based application server that supports the Java EE 5 standard. It's built on Apache Geronimo and integrated with best-of-breed open source technology such as Apache Tomcat, Apache Axis2, and Apache MyFaces. It's Eclipse based development tooling further accelerates application development. It's feature pack for Web 2.0 provides an IBM-supported solution for creating Ajax-based applications and mashups. What's new? Custom server assemblies: Lightweight server assemblies may be created that contain only the functional components required by application(s). Flexible admin console: The admin console is now component-based to mirror the server capabilities. This allows the admin console to provide flexible administrative capabilities that will mirrors the capabilities of a custom server assembly. GShell: GShell is a command-line processing environment that can be used for the execution of Geronimo commands. GShell is an extensible environment and includes support for editing, command history, and tab completion. Plan Creator menu: The Plan Creator wizard is an admin console menu that will help you generate the appropriate deployment plan for the application you are deploying. The wizard currently works for web apps and supports the following features: References: EJB, EJB Local, JDBC Connection Pool, JMS Connection Factory, JMS Destination, JavaMail Session & Web Service references declared in the web-apps are auto discovered and users are asked to resolve them by listing available Resources in the server environment to which they can be linked. References declared inside the Java classes through Annotations are also auto discovered. Simplified configuration of Security. Clustering Support: WADI can now be used to support clustering of web applications for Geronimo configurations which use the Tomcat Web Container. Applications can be deployed to administratively-defined groups of Geronimo servers Monitoring Console Plugin: The monitoring console plugin provides monitoring support in the Geronimo admin console. The monitoring console can gather statistics and performance data from multiple Geronimo servers and graphically display this data to users. Other: Numerous additional consumability & ease of use enhancements have been made! Get the detailed scoop on what's new here: Download the code off of our developerWorks site and let us know what you think of our latest release!

    Threaded Messages (11)

  2. not worth it[ Go to top ]

    The day IBM gets rid of those geronimo-XXX.xml Deployment Descriptors and make it easier to deploy MDB, then it´s gonna be worth trying WASCE. Also, the samples are soo messed up.. it took me 2 days to deploy a MDB, while on JBoss it was done in no more than 10 min.. not enough documentations, too much bugs.. too much misleading exceptions that gives you no clue of what might have been wrong.. like this one for instance.. I guess they were missing one of the most important topics to consider when releasing such a product.. KISS! :(
  3. Re: not worth it[ Go to top ]

    Perhaps you can point me to an app server which doesn't have their own server-specific deployment configuration requirements? Java EE 5 helps with this, but you're going to encounter implementation-specific configuration requirements in any EE server. The WAS CE MDB samples deploy just fine for me. I did have to chmod a .sh script, which wasn't marked as executable from the zip file, to execute the sample program... There's always room for usability improvements. And we are working to make things better. A Geronimo Jira less than 1 month old is hardly a fair metric. Many users seem to be finding WAS CE very useful. We're delivering flexible, component-based server that others are still talking about...
  4. Re: not worth it[ Go to top ]

    I guess other's have asked this before, but here goes: what exactly is IBM's strategy for Websphere CE vs the one that is licensed to big corporates (the one that generates revenue)? I've always that this dual strategy was dubious, meaning, I don't quite get it, and all the answers I've heard so far don't quite make sense. I don't think that the existing Websphere deployments would even take a look at CE, b/c there is so much stickiness with the whole Websphere/RSA/RAD stack. An open source community edition makes sense, but only if it is the same source base. Otherwise, it becomes a lead into the proprietary stuff. Its hard to make an apples to apples comparison with others such as JBoss or GlassFish. Another interesting note: the Websphere 7 open beta download is 870MB in a tar, vs the 54MB GlassFish download. At some point, when the commercially supported AS products wittle away at Websphere revenue (which it will), will IBM merge the CE edition with the core offerings?
  5. thanks but no thank you.
  6. Congratualations[ Go to top ]

    Great! Thank You and keep up the good work guys. I am really looking forward to use the new Clustering capabilities. Satya Ghattu
  7. How will CE relate to IBMs commercially offered Websphere? When writing application targeted for the enterprises working with CE is unfortunately useless since the Websphere offered to enterprises by IBM is a completely different beast. PS: I would much prefer CE compared to Websphere ND etc, but IBM does not seem to feel that way since they make a lot of money on the other Websphere platforms.
  8. TOTALLY agree! I believe they also back themselves on geronimo because they could not make the real websphere code available.. (maybe common piece of code from other vendors? who knows..) but, not everything is lost since they do provide that ASMA workaround for making CE applications deployed on WAS 6.1, but unfortunately that doesn´t work for latest JEE 5 technology.. oh well! here we go again..
  9. Re: Websphere CE vs Websphere ND[ Go to top ]

    We're always looking for feedback on our alphaWorks technologies like WASMA to guide our future updates. If you have specific JEE5 features you are looking to migrate from WASCE to WAS (like EJB3, WAS v7, Eclipse support), then please post those thoughts here and/or on the WASMA forum at
  10. Re: Websphere CE vs Websphere ND[ Go to top ]

    Hi Donald, is there link somewhere that you can provide that articulates the strategy for Websphere CE vs ND, etc.?
  11. Re: Websphere CE vs Websphere ND[ Go to top ]

    Hi Donald,
    is there link somewhere that you can provide that articulates the strategy for Websphere CE vs ND, etc.?
    I am the product manager for WebSphere Application Server Community Edition (WAS CE). As you know WAS CE is based on popular Apache Geronimo open source application server. On top of Geronimo's lightweight and flexible modular architecture, WAS CE provides stability, documentation and support structure. WAS CE discussion forum is also monitored. Most of our customers use WAS CE for their lightweight Java workload. However, few customers ventured farther with their creativity and unique application architectures. WebSphere Application Server (WAS), including Network Deployment (ND), base and Express Edition, are commercial application servers. Both WAS and WAS CE support full Java EE programming model and Web 2.0 capabilities such as Ajax, Comet, Dojo, Feeds etc. Beside Java EE and Web 2.0 programming models, WAS (not WAS CE) also supports a range of more advanced programming model such as SIP, Portlet and variety OASIS web service standards. Certainly WAS offers a much more secure, performing, reliable and scalable implementation of Java application server than open source application servers including WAS CE and others. Customers have been betting their business on WAS for a decade now. WAS is the proven foundation of IBM's SOA strategy. Combining the strength of both WAS and WAS CE, we offer a broad range of choices to our customers. They can choose the right application server based on requirements of their applications, thus optimize their IT investment and improve their TCO. In our experience, our customer often purchase both WAS and WAS CE support for their different applications. In addition, WebSphere also offers Virtual Enterprise and Extreme Scale that provide application infrastructure virtualization, provision and extreme transaction (XTP) capability. These products support both WAS and WAS CE. We have observed our customers to use Virtual Enterprise managing both WAS and WAS CE and leverage Extreme scale in order to stretch the scalability of WAS CE. So start small and grow with our WebSphere. In summary, WAS and WAS CE complement each other. Together they broadened the reach of our portfolio to more diversified customer requirements and customer base. Our customer loved this story and we are getting good business results. The "mixed source" strategy analysts have been talking about is no longer a theory. It is working for IBM. Going forward, IBM will continue contributing to Apache Geronimo community generously and keep both WAS CE and WAS product lines strong. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this topic. Look forward to hearing from you for more questions and suggestions. I can be reached at qwang at us dot ibm dot com.
  12. Re: Geronimo v. WebSphere[ Go to top ]

    With all due respect, there is not a single piece of that statement that makes sense to me, i really don't think that bifurcating the code base, and expecting customers to jump through an extra-hoop, even considering JEE portability, is a legitimate application server enterprise... this is one more example of IBM milking customers for exorbitant fees just to justify product-lines, when it is very clear that Glassfish and JBoss are the models that WebSphere needs to follow... is there any disagreement with that, other than IBM corporate's financial statements?... it is time to begin, perhaps behind the scenes, a complete re-write of the WebSphere product-line on Geronimo and get competitive for accounts that are not embedded with IBM already... i appreciate you coming on here to give an explanation, and i know it is the party line coming out of Armonk, but this is ridiculously skewed in favor of higher costs, lower developer productivity, less compliance with specifications, and weakened competitive positioning vis-a-vis .Net...