Borland Janeva - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 33
About This Presentation
Title:

Borland Janeva

Description:

Need to add 'new skin' to their existing applications. Have ... Jim Farley, author of Java Distributed Computing, coauthor of Java Enterprise in a Nutshell... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:43
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 34
Provided by: conference71
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Borland Janeva


1
Borland Janeva
  • .NET and COM Interoperability

Anders Ohlsson Sr Manager Developer Relations
2
What is Janeva?
3
.NET COM interoperability to J2EE and CORBA
  • Integrated Solution
  • Tight Integration with .NET IDEs
  • Support for Native environments
  • Cost Effective Implementation
  • Leverages existing infrastructure
  • Additional development not needed
  • Based on Proven Foundations
  • Nothing New and Nothing Proprietary!
  • Based on .NET, J2EE, and CORBA
  • High Performance
  • Leverages IIOP
  • Based on Borland Enterprise Servera proven
    Technology
  • Reliable, Scalable, and Secured
  • Leverage existing Load Balancing,Clustering,
    Failover, etc
  • Security provided
  • Transactions Supported

4
Why .NET?
5
Whose is considering .NET?
  • Organizations who
  • Need to add new skin to their existing
    applications
  • Have existing J2EE or CORBA infrastructures
  • Require seamless and secured interoperability
    between the platforms
  • Encountered issues with Web Services and Bridging
    solutions
  • Performance, Scalability, and Reliability
  • Implementing additional infrastructures
  • Adopting proprietary (vs. standards) based
    solutions

6
Why are organizations considering .NET?
  • Improved Productivity
  • Faster-time-to-Market on front-end development
  • Lower development costs
  • Better UI Experience
  • Customer Satisfaction
  • Improved product marketability
  • Improved general use and adoption of application
  • Lower costs associated with
  • Deployments
  • Migrations
  • Training
  • Documentation
  • Support
  • So then why J2EE and CORBA?!
  • Scalability
  • Reliability and Security
  • Platform Diversity
  • Lower Total Cost of Ownership

7
Where do technologies play well?
8
What needs to be solved?
9
Connecting the environments
Chasm
Getting .NET, J2EE and CORBA to work together -
Seamlessly - Securely - Reliably - with High
Performance
10
Solutions available for Interoperability
  • Web Services
  • Centralized Bridging
  • Distributed Bridging
  • Messaging
  • On-The-Wire
  • Lets examine each of these

11
Web Services
12
Web Services
  • Advantage
  • Can interoperate with most technical
    infrastructures
  • Communicate across Firewalls
  • Coarse-grained solution
  • Development tools are generally available and
    tightly integrated
  • Disadvantage
  • Additional Hardware and Software resources may be
    needed
  • Additional development may be needed
  • Changes may be required to the back-end
  • More components added to the mix
  • More working parts
  • More parts to Manage, Maintain, and Support
  • Poor Performance
  • Web Services must act as translator between .NET
    and J2EE CORBA environments
  • Could be a single point of failure
  • Security, Transactions, and Qualities of Service
    (QoS) features may not be supported
  • Interoperability is not seamless
  • Standards have yet to be agreed upon

13
Centralized Bridge
14
Central Bridging
  • Advantage
  • Customization may be easier to address specific
    requirements
  • Disadvantage
  • Additional Hardware and Software resources are
    needed
  • Additional Development will be needed
  • Changes may be required to the back-end
  • Poor Performance
  • Bridge must act as translator between .NET and
    J2EE CORBA environments
  • Single-point of failure
  • Security, Transactions, and Qualities of Service
    (QoS) features may not be supported
  • Interoperability is not seamless
  • Proprietary Solution
  • No integrated development tools

15
Distributed Bridge
16
Distributed Bridging
  • Advantage
  • Customization may be easier to address specific
    requirements
  • Disadvantage
  • Intrusive to the back-end
  • Additional Development will be needed
  • Poor Performance
  • Bridge must act as translator between .NET and
    J2EE CORBA environments
  • Security, Transactions, and Qualities of Service
    (QoS) features may not be supported
  • Interoperability is not seamless
  • Proprietary Solution
  • No integrated development tools

17
Messaging
JMS Message Queue
CORBA Message Queue
18
Messaging
  • Advantage
  • Coarse-grained solution
  • Support for Security, Transactions and Qualities
    of Service (QoS) features
  • Disadvantage
  • Performance
  • Synchronous only solution
  • Message Latency
  • Communications across Firewalls
  • Translations need to take place in the Messaging
    engine

19
On-The-Wire (IIOP) Janeva!
Janeva is inherently part of the .NET application
itself
20
On-The-Wire (IIOP) Janeva!
JMS Message Queue
CORBA Message Queue
21
On-The-Wire (IIOP)
  • Advantage
  • Fine-grained solution
  • Performance
  • Support for Security, Transactions and Qualities
    of Service (QoS) features
  • Integrated developed tools are available
  • Support for both synchronous and asynchronous
    communications
  • Makes .NET applications Trilingual to talk to
    J2EE and CORBA
  • Disadvantage
  • Clients and Servers must support the wire
    protocol
  • Affected by changes to the version of the
    protocol

22
What are some other solutions?
23
Janeva Easy for .NET Developers
24
Developing Web Services in .NET
Deploy
25
Developing with Janeva in .NET
Deploy
26
Whats In Janeva?
27
Inside Janeva
  • Supported Platforms
  • DiamondBack (Delphi for .NET and CBuilder)
  • Borland Enterprise Server 6.0
  • Borland Enterprise Server 5.x
  • WebLogic 7.0
  • WebLogic 8.1
  • WebSphere 5.0
  • Oracle9iAS
  • Visual Studio for .NET 2002 and 2003
  • Client Activated Object (CAO) Abstraction over
    EJB Factory Design patterns
  • Portable Interceptors (PI) based on OMG
    specification

28
More Inside Janeva
  • .NET style configuration using configuration
    files
  • Comprehensive Data Type and Exception support
    (over 250)
  • Native Java data type mapping
  • CORBA IDL data type mapping
  • Effective and Efficient Data Marshalling and
    Demarshalling
  • Based on Borland Enterprise Server Technology
  • Full Server side (Callback) support
  • Portable Object Adaptor (POA) based servers
  • .NET Remoting style Servers
  • .NET Remoting style Transient Objects
  • Security
  • Full CSIv2 support for interoperability
  • Support for SSL client and server
  • Client authentication using username/password
  • Client authentication using certificates
  • Server authentication using certificates

29
Why Janeva?
30
What does Janeva provide you with?
  • Seamless interoperability
  • No changes to the back-end
  • No additional development needed for connectivity
  • Transparent and non-invasive implementation
  • Lower Total Cost of Ownership
  • Leverage existing platform investments
  • No additional technical infrastructures needed
  • No additional training required
  • Low Impact and Low Risk
  • High levels of performance with existing
    infrastructures
  • Lowest cost for front-end maintenance shorter
    development lifecycle
  • Adheres to existing technical standards
  • Ease of Use
  • Leverage existing development skill sets
  • .NET developers not required to know other
    technologies
  • Tight integration with .NET IDEs

31
Borland Janeva
  • Thank You

32
Janeva compared to Bridging
  • J.P. Morgan on Bridging solution (Ja.NET)
  • Ja.NET has 3 significant failings
  • 1) Its not a pure Java solution in that it
    requires that an MS machine equipped with .NET
    is available at system build time. This is
    problematic for controlled batch and Unix
    builds.
  • 2) Its not dynamic/transparent. You can't
    connect to servers 'adhoc from the desktop.
  • 3) Its using the .NET Remoting protocol - not
    IIOP. Remoting lacks security (important), fail
    over (important) and transaction context (less
    important) information. IIOP would be better,
    since its the open standard.

33
Janeva compared to Web Services?
  • Eric Newcomer, Chief Technology Officer, IONA
    Technologies
  • Web services standards themselves are lacking
    in features compared to .NET and J2EE.
    Therefore, you can use Web Services for basic
    interoperability, but not for building
    applications with a combination of .NET and J2EE
    components yet, at least, not without sacrificing
    significant functionality.
  • Jim Farley, author of Java Distributed Computing,
    coauthor of Java Enterprise in a Nutshell
  • The SOAP specification contains no mention of
    security facilities. This is not a good thing.
    One of the advantages of SOAP is that it runs
    over HTTP, which eliminates firewall problems.
    Well, firewalls are there for a reason. No
    enterprise will want to open up a channel to make
    direct, unprotected method calls on their Web
    services.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com