Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

Java vs. CGI ?

Quote Reply
Java vs. CGI ?
Hi Folks

What do you make of this article?

http://builder.cnet.com/...ir1.3882-8-7656475-1

I have been thinking a lot about this recently. A forum would be better off in Java, because it would be a hundred times faster? With information being sent in real time, and pulled in real time?

Surely Java is something worth considering? Why don't people like using Java? Or do you use Java for some programs?

After all, it's much faster than your average CGI script. Much faster ...

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Quote:
A forum would be better off in Java, because it would be a hundred times faster?

Possibly, but you'd have to buy a new server every month when it died from exhaustion.
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
What makes you think it would be 100 times faster?

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Tried a Java based server application once, but never again.
Words that spring to mind...

Buggy
Incompatibility
Cumbersome
Sever strain
Crashing browsers
...etc

And this was from a commercial application that was "supposed" to be better than the Perl equivalent Shocked

Just my TP.

~ ERASER


Free JavaScripts @ Insight Eye
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Don't know, Alex. I've never tried Java.

But from what I gather, you only spawn one process with Java, as opposed to the hundreds spawned with Perl/CGI? Of course, there is FastCGI and mod_perl etc.

But, isn't a java spplet working in real time? If I clicked it would return information stragith away without delay of having to query the server, spawn process... etc?

Have I completly misjudged this?

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Java is pain in the rear end to code too.
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Hi,

Yes, but it's not a fair comparision. If you have the resources to run a java servlet then you should run mod_perl or some other language integrated into Apache. ("Server Support" and "Availability" should be low, not medium in that article -- have you ever tried to install servlets? Ugh! Unless you have a Sun box, it's very difficult).

Also, servlets work in much the same way as a cgi, you make a request to the server, it outputs the html. No difference there between mod_perl, cgi, or servlets.

Any speed increase between mod_perl and servlets would be based on the quality of the code most likely.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Java is terrible Frown I'd have to say it's much worse than regular cgi.
1) speed (from what I've seen it isn't faster than even regular cgi)
2) compatibility (you'll end up having to make two versions of your app - a java version and a regular cgi version - since older browsers or even macs will be able to use it).
3) even if you do get it to be compatible with pc's and macs your code will be really messy since you're pretty much coding a version for every browser.

The upside to java is that you can do nicer gui's (ie. yahoo games Smile).
I think yahoo games has got to be the best implementation of a java app i've seen. Okay, now that I think about it, Java can be 'okay' Wink

Adrian
Quote Reply
Re: [brewt] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
here's a major java forum.

http://discussions.info.apple.com/

well actually I should say webobjects ...

openoffice + gimp + sketch ... Smile
Quote Reply
Re: [QooQ] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
I have to say that does load pretty quick.
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Yeah, lightning fast, considering all I get is a blank page in Mozilla Tongue

Adrian
Quote Reply
Re: [brewt] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Hmm. I must say all the forums I've seen on the web that use Java are very very fast. They are basically like Chat forums where the information appear right away. Kind of pre loading the information I guess and then displaying what you want. You could do this with Javascript too, I guess. Well kind of going off topic now.

Yes, the beauty of Java is most definitly teh chance to design better GUI. You can build your own program I guess, which should be standalone and should theorteicaly be able to run on any platform.

Hmm. I guess I'll have to try some coding in Java for myself and see what results I get.

Alex, you are definitly right about the speed issue though. Using FastCGI and/or mod_perl you should see the same speed, if not faster using perl/cgi.

But when broadband comes into reality? DO you think more and more opeople will start coding bigger java applets? At the moment, the speed of the net for many is no fast enough to download java applets? same as shockwave or flash I guess ??
Cheers

Wil

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
One problem I see with Java based technologies is that M$ no longer supports in Java in XP. I don't know if that is true or not, but documentation about XP that I've read have indicated that Java is not supported in XP.

Don't know...may be Paul can confirm this since he is using XP...
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [Chewbaca] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
From what I can remember, they aren't including Java, but you can just download and install it...
A little different from not being supported IMHO.


Adrian
Quote Reply
Re: [brewt] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
I guess so,,,but I read that it is not supported.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [Chewbaca] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
It is supported, it's not installed as part of the standard installation.

Which means, it's a pain to having to go and download the program, which in really means the death of the technology, IMO.

Or maybe not the death, but it's going to be a lot harder for Sun to market Java as a cross-platform, non-platform-depenable programming language when the major OS does not support it by default.

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Then you have to consider why they dont want to support it ...OOTB Tongue

Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 4, 2001, 6:34 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Because Sun just sued them for $20 million for editing their source code, and making changes to Java without their consent.

Therefore, MS are pissed with Sun. Kind of backfired at Sun though, because now MS are playing funny buggers by not putting it in XP.

It has NOTHING to do with the power of Java as a programming platform.

Just politics ...

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
And it's actually still on-going. Sun still aren't happy...

http://news.cnet.com/...003-200-7764694.html

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
I said look at the reasons why it isn't distributed with XP and other OS's - I never said it had anything to do with "Java as a programming platform"

You are putting words in my mouth Tongue


Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 4, 2001, 7:21 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [brewt] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Yep you are right Adrian.

Also the Netscape setup will download Sun Java to XP.
Quote Reply
Re: Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
jumping into the fire. Sly

M$ business as usual. Develop for a company "borrow" some ideas and offer a lower quality product. People buy it since the machine that sits on their desk sits almost on everyone else's desk, too. Hell it's a business company and all's fair in war, isn't it.

OS X and Apple embraces Java and have pitted their business orientated software's life on it!

I think that Java needs to support the browser companies better. I don't know if they do this or not but if I were SUN I'd offer free in house consultants to developers of browsers so that support for Java will be better implemented.

just a few comments ....

openoffice + gimp + sketch ... Smile
Quote Reply
Re: [QooQ] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
SUN does consult with companies, not M$, and of course, not for free...that is a bad business model.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Java vs. CGI ? In reply to
Maybe. Or maybe I was just clarifying for other lurkers ;-)

- wil