In the late 1990s, Microsoft executives bashed the Java platform at every opportunity, but now SOA and Web services...
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
has changed that hostility to benign neglect, said Greg DeMichellie, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft.
"Their 'war with Java' is over," he said.
So it was perhaps not surprising that in the midst of the controversy over the viability of the Java EE platform, Prashant Sridharan, group product manger of Visual Studio at Microsoft, said, "I don't like to comment on competitors directly. I like to take the high road."
DeMichellie said this is a good public relations strategy, following the old political advice to stay out of the way when your opponent appears to be on a self-destructive path.
Sridharan said he has read articles about the Burton Group report that argues that the Java EE platform is dying of its own complexity, but has not yet gotten his hands on the actual document titled "JEE5: The Beginning of the End of Java EE."
But the Visual Studio product manager was enthusiastic when told the author, Richard Monson-Haefel, senior analyst at Burton, wrote some nice things about Microsoft .NET as an alternative to the Java platform.
The Burton analyst said: "Microsoft's .NET offers a solution that is as comprehensive as Java EE, but much easier to develop. The threat of .NET is largely enabled by JEE5's failure to address the complexity of its common programming model. In contrast, .NET is generally regarded as an easier environment to develop applications in, but it is not narrowly scoped, as is the case with the rebel frameworks, LAMP and [Ruby on Rails]. Instead, the .NET platform can be thought of as a direct competitor to Java EE that offers the same level of functionality."
This is music to Sridharan's ears and validates what he said was the investment and work Microsoft have put into building .NET as a framework for Web services and SOA.
"From its inception in 2000," the Microsoft product manager said, ".NET was always built on a substrate of Web services and industry standard technologies such as SOAP and XML. From the onset, I think we understood the importance of service-oriented architecture and the importance of Web services, and building out a better communications framework than typically existed for Windows applications in the past with COM and things of that nature."
DeMichellie, said it may be a bit of an exaggeration to say the Microsoft was focused on SOA with .NET from the beginning, but he said the company's ability to start work on .NET from scratch just as Web services technology was emerging gives it a leg up of the Java platform, which dates back to initial work at Sun Microsystems Inc. in the client/server era of the mid-1990s.
"Microsoft got to erase the board and start over in 2000," he said, "and that's a little more recent than Java."
The failure of Sun and the other vendors who contribute to the Java platform through the Java Community Process to "erase the board" as SOA replaced older models is what allowed Microsoft to gain an edge on its old rival, DeMichelle argues. He also credits IBM, even though its WebSphere is based on J2EE, with having the foresight to start from scratch with a focus on Web services and SOA.
"IBM and Microsoft designed whole new systems around Web services, and Sun took the same Java that they've been using for other technologies and tried to extend it to Web services."
Analysts may debate who SOA architects and developers will turn to if Java EE goes away, but considering that IBM is the founder and major sponsor of the Eclipse Foundation, which is now touting itself as a platform, DeMichelle's conclusion is not that far from Monson-Haefel, who said, "It's going to come down to Microsoft Visual Studio and Eclipse, as the two dominant players."
IBM and other major vendors such as Oracle Corp., which is still in the Java EE camp, argue that the Microsoft platform is not ready for the high volume transaction applications of large enterprise customers, such as investment firms and banks.
That is the one argument that brings Sridhara at Microsoft back into the competitive fray.
"In the history of Microsoft, our competitors have always tried to position us as only good for departmental or small applications," he argued. "I don't think that is a case that exists any more. If you do an analysis of any application on .NET Framework 2.0 running on Windows Server 2003 in a comparable environment versus any J2EE, you'll see that our Web services platform is faster than any other Web services vendor. It's also capable of handling more transactions and larger scale applications than pretty much any other Web services platform vendor."
DeMichelle agreed that this anti-Microsoft argument is not valid. He said whatever advantage IBM and Oracle might have in the large enterprise application market has nothing to do with their use of the Java EE platform. Oracle's advantage, he said, is the power of its database technology and IBM has the tradition of serving large enterprises that dates back to mainframes running COBOL applications.
Yet one potential obstacle for Microsoft emerging as the SOA platform of choice is whether the Redmond team's products will play well with others.
Microsoft's Sridhana said his company has invested time and money to ensure that the .NET platform can interact with other technologies. "We've developed patterns and practices as well as process guidance and methodologies to help people learn best practices in a variety of environments whether they are operating in a legacy environment with mainframes or with other platforms such as J2EE," he said.
Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, is right there with Burton's Monson-Haefel, in crediting Microsoft with creating tools that make Web services development easy, but in a recent blog on the Java EE viability controversy, Gardner labeled Microsoft's version "pseudo SOA."
Asked to explain what he means, he said, "Increasingly, the best hedge that Microsoft has to keeping more developers within its stack is simplicity, but simplicity in the Microsoft methodology does not mean simplicity for general heterogeneity. That's why I call it pseudo SOA. It's SOA within Microsoft, with Web services and enterprise integration off-ramps. SOA's great promise is to be both relatively simple and generally heterogeneous, neither entirely grounded in .NET or JEE."
DeMichellie didn't accept the pseudo SOA designation, but does agree that Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows operating system is somewhat problematic.
"The biggest argument against the Microsoft approach is that it only runs on the Microsoft operating system," he said. "If you are an organization and you don't want to rely on the Microsoft Windows operating system for your key infrastructure, say you really want to be on Linux, obviously you're not going to use the .NET Framework."