> "The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
> developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> -RFH
Christ. It sounds like they've taken leave of their senses.
This comment on the ZD Net blog was interesting:
"Equinox is not an alternative to Java, since it's a layer on top of the
Java virtual machine and class loading concepts.
I wouldn't even say it was an alternative to .NET."
Which makes more sense. But still, do we need yet another layer in
Java, just so someone can make their own object broker? Sounds kinda
fishy to me.
Mike Schilling - 18 Mar 2008 22:56 GMT
>> "The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
>> developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> just so someone can make their own object broker? Sounds kinda fishy to
> me.
As the quote says, it doesn't sit on top of Java, it sits on top of the JVM.
Presumably the .NET implementation sits on top of the CLR. There isn't
enough information there to see how much sense this thing makes, but a
cross-platform solution isn't a priori silly, any more than a Posix library
that lets your C++ code run on both Windows and Unix is silly.
> "The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
> developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2136&tag=nl.e539
> http://tinyurl.com/2b2pat
Misleading headline.
They are apparently developing a component model for Java.
The competitive products must be MS COM (not COM+ that is
equivalent to EJB) and OOo UNO.
Arne