<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PaaS portability challenges and the VMforce example</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1440/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1440</link>
	<description>William Vambenepe&#039;s stage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:33:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: William (@vambenepe on Twitter)</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1440#comment-882</link>
		<dc:creator>William (@vambenepe on Twitter)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1440#comment-882</guid>
		<description>Choice is good indeed! Thanks Peter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Choice is good indeed! Thanks Peter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Coffee</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1440#comment-881</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Coffee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 01:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1440#comment-881</guid>
		<description>If portability were ipso facto better than platform leverage, no one would use Visual Basic to write Windows applications; we&#039;d all be running 80x25 console apps in &quot;glass TTY&quot; windows. The degree of lock-in that a development team chooses to accept is a design and implementation choice, not a simple issue of &quot;less is better.&quot;

Development teams routinely make a choice between delivering better apps sooner, or using more portable technology: the question is where to strike the balance, not whether that trade-off exists. If you want rapid deployment of a high-function application with a rapid cycle of updates, a high-leverage environment is a handy option to have. If you plan to write an application to use without changes for a long, long time, and you want to be able to run it in several generations of application environment, portability might become as important as developer productivity.

VMforce improves this choice, both for Java developers and Force.com developers, to become more of a continuum rather than a discrete set of options. That can&#039;t be bad for anyone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If portability were ipso facto better than platform leverage, no one would use Visual Basic to write Windows applications; we&#8217;d all be running 80&#215;25 console apps in &#8220;glass TTY&#8221; windows. The degree of lock-in that a development team chooses to accept is a design and implementation choice, not a simple issue of &#8220;less is better.&#8221;</p>
<p>Development teams routinely make a choice between delivering better apps sooner, or using more portable technology: the question is where to strike the balance, not whether that trade-off exists. If you want rapid deployment of a high-function application with a rapid cycle of updates, a high-leverage environment is a handy option to have. If you plan to write an application to use without changes for a long, long time, and you want to be able to run it in several generations of application environment, portability might become as important as developer productivity.</p>
<p>VMforce improves this choice, both for Java developers and Force.com developers, to become more of a continuum rather than a discrete set of options. That can&#8217;t be bad for anyone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Vambenepe &#8212; Analyzing the VMforce announcement</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1440#comment-880</link>
		<dc:creator>William Vambenepe &#8212; Analyzing the VMforce announcement</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1440#comment-880</guid>
		<description>[...] [UPDATED 2010/4/29: See the follow-up post, PaaS portability challenges and the VMforce example.] [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] [UPDATED 2010/4/29: See the follow-up post, PaaS portability challenges and the VMforce example.] [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derik Pereira</title>
		<link>http://stage.vambenepe.com/archives/1440#comment-879</link>
		<dc:creator>Derik Pereira</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stage.vambenepe.com/?p=1440#comment-879</guid>
		<description>Once more, the Oracle has spoken well!

But, I know you can answer the question of &quot;migration&quot; ... after all, I think IT$ spent are 10% on new apps and 90% on old apps (maintenance on &quot;non-cloud&quot;). For scope, think of all the &quot;variations&quot; of java things (beans, ejbs, and whatnots). Then, all those non-java things (snakes, pythons, jewels and whatnots)could be added into the soup.

The net is 90% of $IT is the holy &quot;grail(and groovy) with a spring&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once more, the Oracle has spoken well!</p>
<p>But, I know you can answer the question of &#8220;migration&#8221; &#8230; after all, I think IT$ spent are 10% on new apps and 90% on old apps (maintenance on &#8220;non-cloud&#8221;). For scope, think of all the &#8220;variations&#8221; of java things (beans, ejbs, and whatnots). Then, all those non-java things (snakes, pythons, jewels and whatnots)could be added into the soup.</p>
<p>The net is 90% of $IT is the holy &#8220;grail(and groovy) with a spring&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

