As Oracle axes support for GlassFish, MySQL users might want to pay attention

http://parelastic.com/blog/oracle-axes-support-glassfish-mysql-users-might-want-pay-attention

by tanglesome • 13 years ago

33 41 13 years ago

g4m8i74• 13 years ago

A lot of the big distros have transitioned to MariaDB already (https://mariadb.com/kb/en/distributions-which-include-mariad...). Debian probably will soon as well, which will trickle down into Ubuntu probably.

I think there's plenty of room outside Oracle if they were to ever shut down MySQL. I moved to MariaDB, and it really was a drop-in replacement.

tvon3• 13 years ago

Compatibility document for the curious:

https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-versus-mysql-compatibility...

Shish2k• 13 years ago

TL;DR: It's 100% binary compatible, but PHP manages to have problems anyway

/facepalm

rwmj• 13 years ago

Why? MySQL has a well-maintained drop-in replacement outside of Oracle control (MariaDB). It's even mentioned in the article.

(And no one's ever heard of Glassfish, probably the reason why Oracle are dropping it)

tvon3• 13 years ago

Agreed, every MySQL project I'm on is actually a MariaDB project. While I prefer Postgres and have arguments to present to clients who rely on MySQL, a fear of Oracle is not one of those arguments because I just don't think it matters what happens to MySQL proper.

PaulHoule• 13 years ago

I think the difference is that Glassfish is a piece of garbage. Among the few people who have heard of it it has a reputation of being the worst application server you can possibly use.

cbp• 13 years ago

There are a couple applications running on top of glassfish at $DAYJOB but I can't say I've ever been involved with them. Care to elaborate a little on why it's so bad? I saw the admin console once and it seemed to run like a slug but it did seem to include a lot of features.

theandrewbailey4• 13 years ago

The admin console is easily the slowest part of Glassfish, but it lets you configure everything that, if you were using Tomcat, would need you to play around with XML.

strictfp• 13 years ago

I haven't used it but there is NO WAY that it is worse than WebSphere.

In any case, my firm belief is that the whole concept of app servers is flawed. Libs are so much better than frameworks, and app servers are just horribly clunky frameworks, which take away as much control as possible from the dev.

Taking control away from devs is a really backwards way of thinking of development as grunt work, which has been proven time and time again that it isn't.

Death to all app servers, I say!

kaffeinecoma• 13 years ago

I actually passed on some repeat client work when they insisted on using WebSphere.

My initial project for them was an eternal struggle to get basic things (XML parsing, Hibernate, CDI, etc) working in their environment because specific versions of these things were already included in the app server, and always ended up conflicting with libs we needed to include for our own app. I remember it distinctly as one of those times where I just felt helpless to make anything work.

theandrewbailey4• 13 years ago

App servers solve so many problems so you don't have to. Taking control away by solving problems to let you focus on the bigger ones is great.

mathattack• 13 years ago

Can you be more specific on your issues with WebSphere? I remember the buzz when it first came out, but haven't bumped into it in quite a while.

noselasd• 13 years ago

In all honesty, I've never heard that about glassfish before. The people I know that use it, are very happy with it, and praise it over JBoss.

dangerboysteve• 13 years ago

Would you care to explain with an example.

sgt• 13 years ago

Definitely not the worst. I work with it every day and most of the time it behaves quite well. Glassfish 4 (Java EE 7 support) behaves relatively well, too. I do wish they made it more light weight and faster, but clearly it is good enough to be bundled with NetBeans 7.4.

theandrewbailey4• 13 years ago

I've been a fan of Glassfish and Netbeans for 5 years. It started when I was testing a few "stacks" for web services, and that combination worked amazingly well out of the box; or rather, it was the only one that did.

lmm2• 13 years ago

As opposed to MySQL, which is respected and certainly not a target widespread of hatred and mockery?

theandrewbailey4• 13 years ago

Have you ever worked with WebSphere or WebLogic? When I was, I wished I was using Glassfish.

tieTYT• 13 years ago

Why, specifically, is it a piece of garbage?

ancarda• 13 years ago

I think that would be sufficient motivation to get me to use PostgreSQL. I doubt I'll go running out to buy an Oracle database when there's sufficient alternatives (including MariaDB).

pron• 13 years ago

The concerns over MySQL might be justified, but have little to do with GlassFish. GlassFish has never been a popular open source project like Tomcat, Jetty or JBoss, and probably not as commercially successful as Oracle's own WebLogic, or IBM's WebSphere, or JBoss. There was really no good reason to keep it alive, other than as the JEE reference implementation, a role which, as I understand, it will continue to serve.

Also, the compatibility between different Java EE application servers is far greater than between different DBs, and migrating from one to the other is usually very simple.

I do hope (and would like to assume) that only the work on the GlassFish server will be reduced, while popular subprojects like Jersey[1] will continue as before.

[1] https://jersey.java.net/

batbomb• 13 years ago

Jersey is an integral part of WebLogic as well, so development will assuredly continue.

From the jersey mailing list:

Jersey remains the JAX-RS implementation in WebLogic as well as JAX-RS RI in GlassFish. The decision to not provide a commercial GF 4.x offering is orthogonal to Jersey and JAX-RS development.
...and now, just to be safe, I should probably add the standard Oracle disclamer :) Here it goes:
The preceding is intended to outline our general product direction. It is intended for information purposes only, and may not be incorporated into any contract. It is not a commitment to deliver any material, code, or functionality, and should not be relied upon in making purchasing decisions. The development, release, and timing of any features or functionality described for Oracle’s products remains at the sole discretion of Oracle.
Marek

Yhippa• 13 years ago

This kind of makes sense; they have WebLogic to sell to enterprise customers.

debacle• 13 years ago

I switched over to MariaDB on my most recent Linux install, and honestly have no idea that the database is different. Moved my Windows install from MySQL to MariaDB as well. Was a bit more complicated, but not by much.

thrillgore• 13 years ago

The way they closed down OpenSolaris told me all I needed to know about Oracle's plans for every other OSS project.

We did use GlassFish with JRuby on a project early on in my career, that's about it.

gmjoe• 13 years ago

I wouldn't worry too much, since MariaDB is out there.

I'd love to make the switch from MySQL, except Amazon RDS doesn't support MariaDB yet. But since they just added PostgreSQL, maybe there's hope? Presumably MariaDB support would be vastly easier, as easy as a new version of MySQL?

leef• 13 years ago

Pure FUD. Oracle has owned Innodb since 2005 and now that they own the whole of MySQL impressive releases are coming at a steady clip. To date, Oracle has been a better steward of MySQL than Sun was.

j_baker• 13 years ago

I think what's more likely is that MySQL goes the way of Hudson/Jenkins. Oracle strangles the open source community and pushes people to use a fork of the original software. Oracle's in the database business, and I just don't see any reason for them to kill off one of the most popular databases in the world. More likely is that they make it serve their purposes to the exclusion of the open source community's.

As Oracle axes support for GlassFish, MySQL users might want to pay attention

Related Stories