When I see 'JEE Java application server', I always wonder:

* How many applications actually target multiple JEE servers

* Whether stuff like Glassfish and JBoss have to spend as much time selling the paradigm as the product

Personally speaking neither company I've worked out used JEE. We used Tomcat at the last place and the Play Framework at my current place.

I'm not sure that the benefits of long-running Java application servers that you can load and unload JAR-applications from exist (especially when unloading JARs has always been a mess).

Jakarta EE gives a lot of options. It evolved.

Running an app server for a long time and redeploy apps to it is just one of them. To be honest, rarely used nowadays.

Many Jakarta EE products support:

* deploying apps on startup, just like Tomcat * bundling the server into a self-contained app, just like what SpringBoot does with Tomcat * running an app from command line, which Tomcat doesn't support - you have to drop the app into a predefined directory, SpringBoot doesn't support it either - the only option is to bundle the app and the server together during build

Some app servers are very lean, start in seconds, just like SpringBoot. Yeah, Tomcat starts faster, but only with a small app. If you add more libraries, you'd likely get to the same startup speed as SpringBoot or Embedded GlassFish.

I think the perception that JEE means big app servers where you deploy multiple apps and rarely restart the server, is very outdated. Nobody really uses Jakarta EE like that anymore. In fact, Jakarta EE is just APIs, the implementation can vary. Quarkus and Embedded GlassFish are perfect examples. Quarkus, although not fully Jakarta EE, can even build apps to native binaries. And Embedded GlassFish can run the same apps designed to run on app servers, on command line, without any installation of an app server.

The model made more sense before containers existed. Basically, Java tried to become a complete platform for application deployment, at a time when there weren’t many other good solutions to that.

However, the problem with that is that it requires writing everything in Java - heterogeneity breaks the model. A language-agnostic solution like containers was bound to win out, it’s just that nothing remotely close existed at the time.

Keep in mind a lot of this was developed even before VMs were commonplace. The first true, usable VMs for x86 were released in 1999, four years after Java’s debut.

They're motivated financially to do so. There's bonuses.

That is what raincole is asking about. Do you have a source for this, in the Uk context?

Government employees get bonuses for denying people benefits they're entitled to?

Source, please?

Which is sometimes why amendments are added, as wrecking motions.

2/3 of the developers on Wine work for CodeWeavers who have a substantial contract with Valve for Proton (a Wine fork/spin).

So most of it.

I don't know that they are. It's just there's more incentive to port stuff that has no direct alternative.

This is basically 'De-ASLR' is it not?

Could you clarify what you mean by that? This does heavily rely on loaded code being position-independent, because the memory used will go into whatever regions `mmap(..., ~MAP_FIXED)` returns.

I think it was meant not in a literal sense. ASLR is meant to make it hard to access memory which isn't yours. Your system makes it easy to access memory which isn't yours.

I wonder if the Rust checker could be made "extra process" aware in your scenario and thus allow rust programs to "connect to each other" in this shared memory space.

That's a confusing perspective of ASLR

I like the CAMRA ones which have the pint line below the rim of the glass. Because technically the head doesn't count as part of the pint and there's a lot of back-and-forth about what the legally acceptable amount of head really is (CAMRA say 0%, pub associations serve 5%, pubs themselves serve whatever they think you'll pay for).

> CAMRA say 0%, pub associations serve 5%

That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

A real ale that CAMRA would be happy with rarely has any head at all whereas a generic lager may need a patient pour to keep it to just 5% head.

Anyone asking for a Guinness with no head doesn't understand the drink they've ordered.

Kind of.

Guinness glasses are exactly a pint, so the Guinness head means you're getting less than a pint of actual beer.

This is tolerated/expected and so de facto correct but de jure perhaps not.

> the Guinness head means you're getting less than a pint of actual beer

I hate to be pedantic but pint being volumetric, you're still getting a pint, independent of density. Also - a nitrogen head doesn't dissipate, so you never get a gap.

I'm now curious though whether a nitrogen head is less dense than a CO2 head...

It feels much denser, and I think it does dissipate... but slowly.

I'm sure it dissipates eventually but I've worked at weddings collecting pints that were forgotten about untouched - it really is a very very slow dissipation.

> It's not true in many/most other countries.

Europe may not drive as much as America, but it's still about half. Cars are popular worldwide for a reason, and it is not American corporations magically convincing everyone how useful they are.

It's also entirely moot, as we're not redesigning the country in the short term to cut down on DUIs.

Yeah, but there's a big difference between having a car because you can afford it and it's often more convenient, and it being completely impractical to not have one. Or even to go have a beer without having to drive home.

> This presumes that the value was created by the authors and not the people who found a way to use the structure in the training set to create intelligence.

This presumes it's binary.

> Or Egyptians for deciphering hieroglyphics instead of the Frenchman who realized the Rosetta Stone they were using to hold up a wall could actually be used to do much more.

Yes, I think a lot more than 1 person deserves credit for years of painstaking research.

> It's the people who found the usable structure, not the people who accidentally generated it, who created the value.

You're naively assuming the structure is accidental.