Still now, Jini and JavaSpaces are sluggish in Japan

When I wrote about JavaSpaces a few days ago, I got the comment which pointed out my out-of-date knowledge. The real cases based on JavaSpaces (or Jini) have worked already, though my awareness was opposite. I should have researched American Web sites. Now, I know JavaSpaces and Jini have been improving steadily. On the contrary, the situation in Japan remains the same that I wrote in my blog from my old information. Jini and JavaSpaces are sluggish in Japan still now.

I googled to find out recent entries about Jini and JavaSpaces from Japanese Web sites. Many sites were listed; however, most articles were written in 1999 and 2000. Many of them has gone. Besides, I found one article written in 2002 which said Jini based application wasn't developed anymore. In this article(http://www.atmarkit.co.jp/news/200211/12/upnp.html) about UPnP, the writer said that Microsift's UPnP thrived while Jini technology was struggling to find the way. The writer also said that topics on Jini seldom showed up in those days. It is true. Everything I could find on the Japanese Internet sites was just two articles about Jini after 2002.

I don't know the reason why Jini and JavaSpaces have been depressed in Japan. I guess a simple web application would have been effective enough in the early 2000s. J2EE products would have been sold well thanks to the vendors' efforts or Japanese character that they love to act same as others. Since JEE has become too big, recently, there is obvious tendency amid Japanese Java developers to go over to lightweight language such as Ruby. This would be negative elements to popularize Jini or JavaSpaces.

I think big obstacles exist in Japan to make Jini or JavaSpaces technology be adopted into a real case right now.

Is XUL obscure? That's OK.

The article of XUL appeared on XML.com this February. It's a very recent article, which is a bit strange. I mean it is the least likely appearing one. As the writer describes XUL as "a little-known use," it is obscure technology. I like XUL, and feel happy to support it; however, I admit XUL application has been slowed its development speed for more than a couple of years except products from Mozilla foundation. Accordingly, I wondered why XUL was up in this time of period. Exciting, I read the article.

This article introduces XUL, supposedly, to readers who don't know it. The writer tries to impress the readers superiority of XUL by comparing with DHTML. The tree example successfully achieved this scheme. Rendering speed is fast; appearance is good. On the contrary, the writer says DHTML is more convenient than XUL implicitly. DHTML works on every browser including Firefox. This, of course, isn't the purpose, but his concern to DHML would help the readers' interest turn to DHTML. That he introduces the utility available for both XUL and DHTML might spur the readers on. I know the writer wanted to defend from a counter-argument. The number of users of XUL-enabled browsers is very small, so programmers are reluctant to support XUL. I mind the readers conclude they don't choose XUL because they need to write not only XUL but also DHTML.

I like XUL, for its programming is simple. It has rich UI, besides, works fast. An XML file is all I need to make UI. I like to write XML, so XUL is fun for me. I think it isn't necessary for XUL to fit into the world all browsers reside. It's all right that XUL is for XUL-lovers' obscure UI. Let's pursuit fun to create own UI by XUL.

Does JavaSpaces have a possibility to become major?

I found an article about JavaSpaces in TheServerSide.com a couple of days ago. I remembered this name well. I had worked for it for about a year before JINI was released. Since it was almost ten years ago, I'm interested in today's situation.
In this article, the writer explains about the definition and the feature of JavaSpaces. In addition, he introduces a small example with describing how to get it work. Every part of this article is familiar to the programmer who once got involved to JavaSpaces. However, how does JavaSpaces sound to Java programmers who don't know this technology?
In the same domain, distributed processing, Web Services technology grew to become eminent. Real Web Services applications have been in action these days. Why JavaSpaces couldn't develop like Web Services? I think the concept of JavaSpaces was too innovative to be understood easily and broadly. Strict to say, JavaSpaces isn't the server-client model. It adopts the peer-to-peer communication model. The "space" provides a place to communicate; therefore, the "space" doesn't control or manage any entries. On the other hand, the concept of Web Services follows the traditional server-client model. Newly added idea was less than that of JavaSpaces. Moreover, as an internet based application, Web Services technology well suited to today's network system.
The writer shows we already have enough tools to make JavaSpaces application. It is true, but JavaSpaces might need innovative application that only JavaSpaces can realize. This would be the most difficult and effective answer JavaSpaces leaps.
What changed is that implementations have been released in public and free. What not changed is that decisive application hasn't created yet.

The answer for what is Web 2.0

I had wondered what is the definition of Web 2.0 for more than a year. Recently, the word, "Web 2.0," has often appeared in articles about Web applications. None of these articles helped me to figure out the definition of Web 2.0. Web applications, which were introduced as Web 2.0, didn't look innovative though those were useful and attractive. Yesterday, I found the entry in Martin Fowler's Bliki which was written about Web 2.0. It was the very answer for my question.
As Fowler wrote "a common misconception I run into is that Web 2.0 is all new stuff," the jargon surely misleads people. When I heard this jargon for the first time, I thought new HTTP protocol might be defined. Reading some articles and using applications of Web 2.0, soon, I knew my misunderstand. Then, why was it reported like something new? Why did they say new era had come? My question had remained until I read Fowler's entry. Fowler explained the word, Web 2.0, expresses the movement from minority to majority. Internet based application is on the way to become vital. Although Fowler admitted the naming was not the best suited to the movement, he acclaimed the concept.
Web 2.0 technology is not new. The word describes just the concept which encourages web application to develop more sophisticated. I like Web 2.0 applications, so I hope they thrive more and more.