Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Fwd: Java vs. html, is java losing

Re: Fwd: Java vs. html, is java losing

From: stephen booth <>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:37:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:31:04 -0800, Lyndon Tiu <> wrote:
> On January 28, 2005 01:10 am, Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco wrote:
> > Hi, I had seen a tendency to not use java for internet use,
> IBM, Oracle(their web based EM is Java based, runs inside a servlet
> container), BEA, Sun would disagree.

I think it's a mixture of what you know, what you have and "Horses for courses"

For the presentation layer then (so long as you don't need client side processing) HTML/XHMTL is pretty much it. You could maybe use PDF or, if your users are on mobile devices, WML.

If you need client side processing then you need to look at Java/JavaScript, Flash or whatever. This does cause problems as you might not always be able to be sure what the person at the other end is running. Their browser might not support Java or Javascript (unlikely these days), mthere might not be a Flash pluging for their platform or they might have an older JVM/version of Flash than you want to use so to support the users you have to give up some features you want to use.

On the backend you've got a lot of choices including JSP, ASP, JavaBeans, PHP, Perl, shellscript, JCL, C, C++, C#,,, Python, AWK &c. Which one you use will probably be primarily be driven by the one you have skills in and have the supporting software for. If you're on UNIX then the .net products are pretty much out. If you're on Windows then you're probably not going to get far with Shellscripting and you're on shaky ground with Perl, Python and AWK. Some require an application server product whilst others just require an Apache module.

HTML and Java are very different things, not competative technologies.  Each has their place.


It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption.
Received on Fri Jan 28 2005 - 19:40:06 CST

Original text of this message