Tuesday, November 19, 2002

BEA Feeling the heat? You've got to wonder if BEA isn't feeling the heat these days. IBM & Oracle have put them squarley in their sites, not to mention mid-tier software guys like WEBM (http://www.webmethods.com/press_release_detail/1,1075,2687,00.html). At the heart of the matter, is the Application Server a commodity or isn't consolidating on a handful of platforms (2 or 3)? Anyway, BEA put out 2 press releases yesterday; 1) Welcomed IBM to the year 2000 (http://www.bea.com/press/releases/2002/1118_ibm_welcome2000.shtml) and 2) Highlighting the cost of IBM software/"service ware" http://www.bea.com/press/releases/2002/1118_ibm_exposed.shtml   The second report comments on how $11 are spent on services for every $1 spent on IBM software, due to the complexity of the WebSphere product family; Albert Chuang, BEA's CEO, mentioned this on their earnings call as well ... okay, fine. It's a big deal, as it was research that IBM themselves comissioned, but it's also from March. You'd think if they had found this out over the summer (slow news and all), it would make sense to bang the drums; the fact that they spend so much time on IBM right now, says to me that they are scared; yes, quarterly numbers are impressive (18 deals over $1 million on license software), but the picture for 2003 looks challenging for BEA. Personally, I think that they'll come out of it okay, but they need to keep their focus on nailing the application server (which is consolidating IMHO, not commiditizing), while they add additional value (Portal, Integrator, etc.), without getting too distracted (Liquid Data anyone?) http://www.bea.com/press/releases/2002/1104_liquiddata_ga_print.shtml 1:34:07 PM    comment []

Dawgs Smack Ducks http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/96005_uwgame16ww.shtml Well, this helps to salvage a mediocre season; there's a reasonable chance of a bowl, even if it is a tier 2 bowl -- especially w/ NCAA not lifting the ban on Cal. A win in the Apple Cup and in a bowl game would help w/ recruiting and moving into 2003. However, the players seem to enjoy beating the Univ. of Zero (woops, is that an "O") http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/96242_ubok19.shtml  One interesting fact; teams who do go to a bowl get an extra 15 practicees; I was thinking that the Huskies might turn down a mid-tier bowl (can you say Silicon Valley Classic / Las Vegas / Seattle Bowls), but that extra practice is a REAL benefit; almost a mini-spring practice ... Bowling or not, there's not much joy or satisfaction at Camp Rick this week -- Apparently for Coach Neuheisel: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/96252_apple19.shtml, who seems to be rather moot in this week's press conf, normally a talkative guy who the media loves to quote, here are some snippets from this week's conversation -- (Comments added by Seattle PI reporter, Ted Miller) Asked about Washington State quarterback Jason Gesser. "He's a good player (prolonged pause)," Neuheisel said. About the WSU rivalry.  "It's a big game (uncomfortable pause)," he said.     Grant M. Haller / P-I   Washington coach Rick Neuheisel salutes the Husky Stadium crowd after beating Arizona last month. The UW won’t have home-field advantage Saturday against No. 3 Washington State.   Why the Cougars have been so successful this season. "They've played well (nervous giggles)," he said Asked to talk about Cougars coach Mike Price. "He's a great coach (insert cricket sounds)," he said. He was asked if his monosyllabic answers were by design. "No . . . I'm just . . . no," he said. Later he added that he's learned that lengthy, thoughtful replies to inquiries "doesn't pay off well for me." Hopefully, this is not indicative of future press conferences, for this would be a tad boring. 1:22:04 PM    comment []

BTP or WS-T? What's your favorite transaction coordinator:             http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_41.htm Roger Sessions takes an interesting look at comparing the BTP and WS-T specifications. The beginning is a funny take comparing his breakfast interests (from Starbucks, breakfast burrito, etc.) and how it applies to transaction coordinator( though probably would've benefitted from an editor). His final summary: * Both are too complicated * The Business Activity (BA) portion of WS-T makes sense to him; the Atomic Transaction (AT) has an unnecessary inheritance model * BTP has 2 models for coordinating units of work; result? unneed complication * Don't bet against BEA, MSFT, & IBM Therefore, here is Roger Session's parting thoughts, which I'll include in full: I"BM, Microsoft, and BEA SHOULD redo their model and make three changes: eliminate the WS-C specification, remove the WS-T dependency on WS-C, and put atomic web service transactions (ATs) where they belong, in the trash. This would gut their proposal, but the remnants would be much stronger. The OASIS group, in turn, SHOULD decide on one single model for coordinating transactions, probably the simplest of the two, the one they call the atomic model." It will be interesting to see how this plays out in 2003. (Thanks to Doug Kaye (http://www.rds.com/doug/weblogs/webServicesStrategies/2002/11/08.html) and Mark Potts, Talking Blocks (http://www.talkingblocks.com/index.htm) for the article) 11:21:58 AM    comment []