Re: little rant 1.4 and WO
Re: little rant 1.4 and WO
- Subject: Re: little rant 1.4 and WO
- From: Mike Little <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:03:06 -0600
I know the pickle you're in. However, consider the operation difficulties Apple has. In all likelyhood, the WebObjects guys have no real idea what the Java implementation guys are doing and vice versa. To hold up the Java 1.4.1 release for a relatively minor product like WebObjects just isn't practical.
This might be a little tough to see in the case of Apple, but when I was working at IBM on WebSphere, we had no clue what the DB2 folks were doing, or for that matter, what Sun was doing with with the JVM. We were real careful about claiming compatibility with anything. At IBM if a customer was trying to run on anything other than a published known good configuration, their solution was simply unsupported.
Now Apple is in a better position to control these difficulties, but these problems still exist none the less. Of course the same rules for mitigating problems of this sort still hold -- don't install until compatibility is verified.
With enterprise class solutions this is the norm.
Mike
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:48AM, James Mooney <email@hidden> wrote:
>Mike
>
>I appreciate with your reply if this were open source. I have the
>ability to scruntinize the code and know full well ahead of time that I
>am on my own. My point is that there appears to be a failure of timely
>communication( a minor issue in this case). Had the post on this list
>appeared prior to the official release via the software updater, I
>would not have bothered downloading the update and waited for the WO
>patch. Now I step on glass not knowing if I am going to get cut or not.
> Apple has on a regular basis posted software updates on the web site
>and then after a couple of days, includes it into the auto updater.
>During this period, news has a chance to make the rounds of the impact
>of the new software on existing platforms and products.
>
>I applaud Apple for getting this new version out. I also applaud them
>for being on the ball to get a patch out. Timing and communication, in
>my opinion, were anemic. That is my point. A timely heads up of a
>potential problem is all I am looking for. Heck, would it be too much
>to ask that since Apple knew there were issues, that the installer
>checked the system first to determine whether WO was installed and if
>so.....to flag the user of issues. << that would be smart,
>professional, and classy.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:57 AM, Mike Little wrote:
>
>> I have to respectfully disagree....
>>
>> Web application server environments are by their nature complex and
>> made up a variety of different products. Web server, application
>> server, database server, directory server etc. The ultimate
>> responsibility of verifying compatibility clearly lies with the
>> solution provider(you) and not a product vendor. Components of a
>> solution should be assumed to be incompatible, until verified and
>> officially supported by the vendors (assuming your solution isn't an
>> ad hoc configuration) and then by the solution providers.
>>
>> Apple never said WO 5.2 and Java 1.4.1 were compatible with one
>> another... And until they do, they aren't.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 09:44AM, James Mooney
>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> It would seem prudent that there are a couple of ways to inform WO
>>> users of this issue of incompatibility.
>>>
>>> The current list post from Webobject is a little too late.
>>>
>>> I saw the update and allowed it be installed on my machine. I read
>>> the
>>> blurps noted in the update and saw no mention of issues with WO. It
>>> would have been helpful to have at least a notice in the installer
>>> update that WO and 1.4 are not yet ready to be married. Update at
>>> your
>>> own risk.....
>>>
>>> Something along those lines would have been a responsible move. I
>>> checked postings on this list and this is the first time in two days
>>> of
>>> an official position on compatibility.
>>>
>>> Was someone asleep at the wheel? There is no logic in posting a
>>> software update when it jeopardizes the integrity of a working product
>>> in the same family in which the update is derived. So my installation
>>> is potentially hosed. Could you please post the procedures to bring
>>> my
>>> system back into a stable product. I also downloaded the developer
>>> tools update as well. How do I go back two days? If this is not
>>> possible, could you please post reported troubled areas that are
>>> currently reported as known issues? Water I should not tread on so to
>>> speak.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>>> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.