… and complicated things should be possible. And, for that matter, not unnecessarily complicated.
I don’t know how many years it’s been since Alan Kay said that, and people still don’t listen.
I’m working on an application now that uses a Swing-based client, deployed using JNLP (i.e., Java Web Start). The client talks to a SOAP-based web service. It’s written using Apache SOAP, which has worked out pretty well, but for various reasons I’ve been looking into reimplementing the web service part using Sun’s JAX-RPC.
Some background: JNLP-based apps are deployed from a web server, and launched (the first time, at least) from a web page. But they’re full-fledged Java apps that get downloaded as JAR files and run on the client machine. So the best way to package it is to put the whole client—the JAR files, the HTML pages, and the JNLP file—in the WAR file with the server-side stuff. And that’s the way our build system works. We compile the whole thing, build the client JAR, and then build the WAR that includes the client.
In JAX-RPC (at least, in Sun’s implementation of it) they’ve tried to make the process easy. The service is defined as an RMI interface, and the implementation also fits RMI conventions. So far, so good. Then you compile the service definition and the implementation class. Then things get bad. In an effort to make this all simple, they’ve gone too far. The next step is that you package your server and a SOAP mapping file into a WAR file, and pass that WAR to a tool called “wsdeploy”. That tool reads your WAR, generates stub and tie classes that are used to hook the client and server code into the SOAP infrastructure, and then repackages your server, along with the tie classes and the server-side SOAP support, into a brand new WAR file.
All of that has to be done before you have the stub files that you need to properly compile your client code. So our nice, clean, 3-step build process (compile, package client, package server) turns into this:
- Compile server
- Package server into WAR
wsdeploy, which does these things:
- reads the WAR
- generates stubs and ties
- rebuilds the WAR with ties and SOAP infrastructure included
- Compile client
- Package client
- Add the client to the WAR file.
That’ll sure shorten the edit/compile/debug cycle and keep my ant scripts clean.
It turns out that there is another tool, xrpcc, that generates the stubs and ties in a more conventional way. But I haven’t been able to find any documentation for that tool. It, too, uses an XML-based config file to define the SOAP mapping, but it’s a different flavor of XML, with no documentation that I can find.
I’m all in favor of a good out-of-the-box experience. But it’s frustrating to hit a brick wall when you try to move beyond that to real work.
Here’s another idea for Blapp. Not often, but occasionally, blog ideas occur to me faster than I can write them. Right now I’m recording the ideas in a sticky until I get time to write a proper blog entry, but it would be nice if Blapp would maintain a little list for me to dribble those half-baked thoughts into.
I thought for a while it was some rogue application eating up CPU, and sure enough Mozilla, Chimera, and NetNewsWire all seem to waste cycles when they’re not obviously doing anything. But it happens even when I kill them. And I’ve just realized that it only seems to happen when I’m plugged in with the power adapter.
Looks like it’s related to the “processor performance” setting under Energy Saver. I wish I knew more about what the “reduced” setting means. How slow is it? Is it always reduced, or does it just pull back the throttle when the temperature is too high? That’s the setting I would like to have for use when the power is plugged in: full speed ahead unless things get hot, and then pull back to avoid having to run the fan at high speed. (For most things I do, I prefer quiet to blazing performance.)
I suppose it’s a litte ungrateful to say this two days after category support arrived in version 5 of Blosxom (or whatever it really is in Rael’s strange version numbering system). But it’s still true … you should be able to put Blosxom entries in multiple categories. Here’s a great example: this entry could reasonably fit into several other categories (Computers/Internet/Blogging because it deals with Blapp, Computers/SoftwareDevelopment/Methodologies because it deals with bazaar-style development, Computers/SoftwareDevelopment/Tools because it deals with GUI builders, Computers/SoftwareDevelopment/Interfaces because it deals with inherent problems of GUI development … you get the idea).
I understand the need to have a primary category, but secondary categories wouldn’t have to reflect the disk storage model.