Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Dev212 Comparing  Net And Java  The View From 2006
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Dev212 Comparing Net And Java The View From 2006

687

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
687
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DEV212 Comparing .NET and Java: The View from 2006 David Chappell Chappell & Associates www.davidchappell.com
  • 2. Application Platforms Today Data Access Containing and Connecting Logic Defining Logic Logic to Logic Logic to Web Browser Accessing Data Web Services Binary Communication Distributed Transactions, etc. Queued Messaging Using Logic Web Browser Standalone Client Objects Remote Logic
  • 3. .NET Framework 2.0 Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data Using Logic ADO.NET ASP.NET ASMX/ WSE .NET Remoting Enterprise Services System. Messaging C#/Visual Basic/etc. Browser Windows Forms Remote Logic
  • 4. J2EE 1.4 Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data JDBC Using Logic Servlets/Java Server Pages (JSP) JAX-RPC Remote Method Invocation (RMI) Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) Java Message Service (JMS) Java Browser Remote Logic Standalone Client
  • 5. How We Got Here The Last Ten Years Java Microsoft 1996 Java, Java VM Windows DNA - ASP, ADO, MTS Key 1999 J2EE 1.0 - JSP, JDBC, EJB 2002 <ul><li>.NET Framework 1.0 </li></ul><ul><li>C#/VB.NET, CLR </li></ul><ul><li>ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Enterprise Services </li></ul><ul><li>ASMX </li></ul>J2EE 1.4 - JAX-RPC 2003 2005 .NET Framework 2.0 Application server technologies Languages Web services
  • 6. What’s Next .NET Framework 2.0 Java EE 5, including: - Enterprise JavaBeans 3.0 - JAX-WS - More . . . Java Community Process (JCP) <ul><li>The open source world, including: </li></ul><ul><li>Eclipse </li></ul><ul><li>Spring Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Hibernate </li></ul><ul><li>Much more . . . </li></ul>Various processes Open SOA (OSOA), including: - Service Component Architecture (SCA) - Service Data Objects (SDO) Open SOA Collaboration .NET Framework 3.0, including: - Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) - Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) - More . . . J2EE 1.4
  • 7. Application Platforms in 2008 Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Logic to Web Browser Accessing Data Data Access Using Logic Web Browser Standalone Client Remote Logic Logic to Logic Objects Workflows If … Then … Rules If … Then … If … Then …
  • 8. .NET Framework 3.0 Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic ASP.NET Accessing Data Using Logic Browser/AJAX/ XBAPs Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) Remote Logic ADO.NET C#, VB, etc. Workflows Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) Rules WF Rules Engine Windows Communication Foundation (WCF)
  • 9. Java EE 5 Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data Using Logic Remote Logic Servlets/Java Server Pages (JSP) Browser/AJAX Standalone Client Java JDBC Java Persistence API (JPA) JAX-WS Remote Method Invocation (RMI) Enterprise JavaBeans 3.0 Java Message Service (JMS) Workflows Rules
  • 10. Open SOA Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data Using Logic Remote Logic Service Data Objects (SDO) Servlets/ Java Server Pages (JSP) Browser/AJAX Standalone Client Java, C++, etc. Workflows BPEL Service Component Architecture (SCA) Rules
  • 11. What Will Succeed J2EE 1.4? Divining the Future <ul><li>Major J2EE vendors (e.g., IBM and BEA) have announced plans to support both Java EE 5 and Open SOA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But they’re unhappy with Sun’s stewardship of Java </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some observations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“We’re moving away from slavish devotion to J2EE to a blended source model” – Bill Roth, Vice President, BEA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Organizations should look elsewhere when considering new enterprise development and should plan for the eventual sunset of Java EE as an enterprise solution.” –Burton Group, July 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Going forward, a combination of Java EE 5 and Open SOA is likely to dominate </li></ul>
  • 12. A Plausible Successor to J2EE 1.4 Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data Using Logic Remote Logic Servlets/ Java Server Pages (JSP) Browser/AJAX Swing/Eclipse Client Java Workflows Rules BPEL Various Service Component Architecture (SCA) Service Data Objects (SDO) Java Persistence API (JPA)
  • 13. Defining Logic: A Closer Look Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data Using Logic Objects Workflows If … Then … Rules If … Then … If … Then …
  • 14. Defining Logic: Objects <ul><li>The main .NET languages (C#/VB) and Java are advancing along similar paths, e.g., </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both now have generics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Java has added annotations (analogous to .NET’s attributes) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Both worlds are adding support for dynamic languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>.NET: CLR-based IronPython </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Java: JVM-based Jython, Groovy, etc. </li></ul></ul>
  • 15. Defining Logic: Workflows Workflow Engine 1) Execute first step 2) Execute second step 3) Execute next step . . .
  • 16. Creating Workflow Logic Two Approaches <ul><li>A workflow language: Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An XML-based language for defining process logic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Originally created by Microsoft and IBM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Now owned by OASIS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Generalized activities: Windows Workflow Foundation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each activity is defined as a class </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can also support BPEL with appropriate activities </li></ul></ul>
  • 17. BPEL Example Activities <ul><li>sequence : executes one or more activities sequentially </li></ul><ul><li>flow : executes one or more activities in parallel </li></ul><ul><li>switch : executes one of several paths based on the value of a condition </li></ul><ul><li>while : executes a specified activity as long as a condition is true </li></ul><ul><li>invoke : calls a web service </li></ul><ul><li>receive : receives an incoming web service call </li></ul><ul><li>compensationHandler: defines a compensation handler </li></ul><ul><li>wait: delays the process for a period of time </li></ul>
  • 18. BPEL A Simplified Example (1) <ul><li><process> </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul><ul><li><partnerLink name=“customer” ... /> </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul><ul><li><variables> </li></ul><ul><li><variable name = incomingRequest … /> </li></ul><ul><li><variable name = customerInfo … /> </li></ul><ul><li></variables> </li></ul><ul><li><sequence> </li></ul><ul><li><receive partnerLink=&quot;customer&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>variable=“incomingRequest“ /> </li></ul>Wraps operations into an executable process Identifies a communication partner Declares variables Receives a message
  • 19. BPEL A Simplified Example (2) <ul><li><assign> </li></ul><ul><li><copy> </li></ul><ul><li><from variable=“incomingRequest&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>property=&quot;props:customerNumber&quot;/> </li></ul><ul><li><to variable=“customerInfo&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>property=&quot;props:customerID&quot;/> </li></ul><ul><li></copy> </li></ul><ul><li></assign> </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul><ul><li></sequence> </li></ul><ul><li></process> </li></ul>Performs an assignment
  • 20. Defining a Graphical Process Notation An Aside <ul><li>The Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) aims at defining a standard graphical notation for defining process logic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s owned by the Object Management Group (OMG) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For graphically defined processes, BPMN could allow skills portability </li></ul>Receive Invoice PO Found? Process PO Send Payment Yes OK? Yes No No
  • 21. BPEL Illustrating a Typical Implementation BPEL Execution Engine Workflow Graphical Process Design Tool Runtime Services
  • 22. WF Illustrating Its Components Workflow Other Activities BPEL 1.1 Library Host Process Base Activity Library (BAL) Runtime Engine Runtime Services Visual Studio 2005 WF Workflow Designer
  • 23. WF Example BAL Activities <ul><li>Sequence : executes one or more activities sequentially </li></ul><ul><li>Parallel : executes one or more activities in parallel </li></ul><ul><li>IfElse : executes one of several paths based on the value of a condition </li></ul><ul><li>While : executes a specified activity as long as a condition is true </li></ul><ul><li>InvokeWebService : calls a web service </li></ul><ul><li>Compensate: defines a compensation handler </li></ul><ul><li>Delay: delays the process for a period of time </li></ul>
  • 24. Perspective BPEL and WF <ul><li>BPEL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pros: The OASIS standard provides some portability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Although vendors typically add proprietary extensions to the language, e.g., for human workflow </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cons: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It’s a rigid approach </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Most developers don’t like XML-based languages </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>WF </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pros: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It’s a more general, extensible approach </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cons: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It’s a Windows-only technology </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Learning to write effective WF workflows takes time </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 25. Defining Logic: Rules <ul><li>A business rules engine (BRE) lets developers express rules in a standard way, then have them executed by a common engine </li></ul><ul><li>A business rules management system (BRMS) typically includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A BRE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developer tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business analyst tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rules management tools </li></ul></ul>
  • 26. Rules in the .NET Framework 3.0 <ul><li>WF includes a basic rules engine </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The engine can be used with a WF workflow or separately </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The WF rules engine targets developers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s not a full BRMS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The goal is to help developers more easily create rule-based applications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Microsoft also provides a separate BRE with BizTalk Server </li></ul>
  • 27. Rules in Java EE/Open SOA <ul><li>Vendors use a range of diverse rules engines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Including integration with third parties such as ILOG </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Object Management Group is working on some standards for rules </li></ul>
  • 28. Perspective Rules <ul><li>Rules are becoming part of the standard development platform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Although business rules engines aren’t yet a mainstream technology for developers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expect changes here </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Even Microsoft’s plans aren’t completely clear </li></ul></ul>
  • 29. Containing Logic: A Closer Look Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Logic to Logic Logic to Web Browser Accessing Data Using Logic
  • 30. Containing and Connecting Logic Logic to Web Browsers <ul><li>.NET Framework 3.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ASP.NET 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Java EE 5 and Open SOA: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both use Servlets/JSPs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Java EE 5 also includes Java Server Faces (JSF) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A JSP tag library implementing a model/view/controller (MVC) architecture for HTML interfaces </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Various open source options are also used, e.g., Struts </li></ul></ul>
  • 31. Containing and Connecting Logic Logic to Logic <ul><li>Java EE 5 tries to improve the existing containers and communication mechanisms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>With JAX-WS and EJB 3.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>.NET Framework 3.0 and Open SOA instead provide a new unified foundation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>.NET Framework: WCF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open SOA: SCA </li></ul></ul>
  • 32. Microsoft vs. EJB The Last Ten Years Java Microsoft 1996 MTS 1998 <ul><li>EJB 1.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Session beans </li></ul><ul><li>Entity beans </li></ul>2000 COM+ <ul><li>EJB 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Session beans </li></ul><ul><li>Entity beans </li></ul><ul><li>Message-driven beans </li></ul>2001 Stateless session beans are analogous to MTS objects New version of entity beans Allowed communication via JMS Enterprise Services 2002 2006 <ul><li>EJB 3.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Session beans </li></ul><ul><li>Message-driven beans </li></ul>(Supplanted by WCF) Provided a .NET wrapper around COM+ Entity beans replaced by JPA
  • 33. Unifying Communication WCF Windows Communication Foundation API ASMX & WSE .NET Remoting Enterprise Services System. Messaging API Applications .NET Framework 2.0 MSMQ SOAP & WS-* Remoting binary protocol DCOM Protocol Others SOAP & WS-* WCF binary protocol MSMQ Protocol Applications .NET Framework 3.0
  • 34. Unifying Communication SCA Service Component Architecture API JAX-RPC Java RMI JMS API EJB Applications J2EE 1.4 Applications Open SOA Others SOAP & WS-* RMI binary protocol Queued messaging protocols Protocol Queued messaging protocols SOAP & WS-* RMI binary protocols Protocol Various protocols
  • 35. An Example Service WCF <ul><li>using System.ServiceModel; </li></ul><ul><li>[ServiceContract] </li></ul><ul><li>interface IAdder </li></ul><ul><li>{ </li></ul><ul><li>[OperationContract] </li></ul><ul><li>int Add(int a, int b); </li></ul><ul><li>} </li></ul><ul><li>class Adder : IAdder </li></ul><ul><li>{ </li></ul><ul><li>public int Add(int a, int b) </li></ul><ul><li>{ </li></ul><ul><li>return a + b; </li></ul><ul><li>} </li></ul><ul><li>} </li></ul>Indicates that this interface should be exposed as a service Indicates that this method should be exposed as an operation in this service
  • 36. An Example Service SCA <ul><li>import org.osoa.sca.annotations.* </li></ul><ul><li>@Remotable </li></ul><ul><li>public interface IAdder </li></ul><ul><li>{ </li></ul><ul><li>int Add(int a, int b); </li></ul><ul><li>} </li></ul><ul><li>public class Adder implements IAdder </li></ul><ul><li>{ </li></ul><ul><li>public int Add(int a, int b) </li></ul><ul><li>{ </li></ul><ul><li>return a + b; </li></ul><ul><li>} </li></ul><ul><li>} </li></ul>Indicates that this interface should be exposed as a remotely accessible service
  • 37. Describing an Exposed Service WCF <ul><li>... </li></ul><ul><li><service type=“Adder,CalcApp&quot;> </li></ul><ul><li><endpoint </li></ul><ul><li>contract=“IAdder,CalcApp&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>binding=”basicHttpBinding” </li></ul><ul><li>address= </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;http://www.qwickbank.com/calc/adder.svc&quot;/> </li></ul><ul><li></service> </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul>Operations exposed by the service How to communicate with the service Where to find the service
  • 38. Describing an Exposed Service SCA <ul><li>... </li></ul><ul><li><service name=“IAdder&quot;> </li></ul><ul><li><interface.java interface=“services.calc.IAdder” /> </li></ul><ul><li><binding.ws port= </li></ul><ul><li>“ http://www.qwickbank.com/calc# </li></ul><ul><li>wsdl.endpoint(IAdder/IAdderSOAP)” /> </li></ul><ul><li></service> </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul>Operations exposed by the service How to communicate with the service Where to find the service
  • 39. More WCF/SCA Similarities <ul><li>Both allow a service to maintain state between calls: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCF: [ServiceContract(Session=true)] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SCA (Java): @Scope(“session”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Both allow one-way methods: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCF: [OperationContract(IsOneWay=true)] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SCA (Java): @OneWay </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Both allow bidirectional communication via callbacks </li></ul>
  • 40. Illustrating Assembly: A Composite SCA Composite Component Component Component Service X Y Z Wire Y Reference Z Property Client X
  • 41. Describing a Composite SCA <ul><li>A <composite> XML element can specify: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The components in a composite </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The services each component exposes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The references each component makes to other services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The wires that connect references to services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expressed as a pair of URIs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any properties that can be set on this composite </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some things this allows: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependency injection , where SCA locates the matching service for a component’s reference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Although how this is done isn’t specified </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Graphical tools for assembling an application’s components </li></ul></ul>
  • 42. Perspective WCF and SCA <ul><li>Problems addressed: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCF: Implementing services and remote clients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SCA: Implementing services and remote/local clients; defining composite assembly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Language support: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCF: Any .NET language </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SCA: Java, BPEL, C++, others </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Availability: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCF: Implementation available now </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SCA: Specs in progress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Security, transactions, reliable communication not yet fully defined </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Various implementations, e.g., open source Tuscany, also in progress </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 43. Accessing Data: A Closer Look Defining Logic Containing and Connecting Logic Accessing Data Data Access Using Logic
  • 44. Data Access Technology The Last Ten Years Java EE Open SOA Microsoft Key 1996 ADO JDBC EJB 1.0 Entity Beans 1998 EJB 2.0 Entity beans 2001 Java Persistence API (JPA) 2006 JAXB Service Data Objects (SDO) ObjectSpaces (cancelled) 2003 Java Data Objects (JDO) System.XML ADO.NET 2002 Relational access O/R mapping XML mapping Relational access and XML mapping Supplants EJB Entity beans and JDO
  • 45. Illustrating ADO.NET .NET Framework Data Provider .NET Framework Data Provider Application DBMS XML Document XML Document DataSet Serialized DataSet <XML … /> Tables
  • 46. Illustrating SDO .NET Framework Data Provider XML Document XML Document Application DBMS Data Access Service Data Access Service XML Document Other Data Source Data Access Service Serialized DataObjects <XML … /> Data Graph DataObjects
  • 47. Perspective Data Access <ul><li>Data access is a hard problem </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both camps have gone through many iterations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Java world has placed more emphasis on O/R mapping technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Microsoft’s forthcoming Language Integrated Query (LINQ) introduces a new perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LINQ for SQL addresses O/R mapping </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LINQ for XML allows access to XML documents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More . . . </li></ul></ul>
  • 48. A Projection for 2008 A Mainstream .NET Framework Application WCF Service WF Workflow ASP.NET AJAX WCF Service LINQ ADO.NET
  • 49. A Projection for 2008 A Mainstream Java EE/Open SOA Application Java SCA Component JSP/ AJAX Java SCA Component BPEL SCA Component SDO JPA
  • 50. Summary <ul><li>Both camps tend to move in similar directions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The platforms will remain functionally similar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The approaches sometimes differ in significant ways, however </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There are pros and cons </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Competition benefits everybody </li></ul>
  • 51. About the Speaker <ul><li>David Chappell is Principal of Chappell & Associates in San Francisco, California. Through his speaking, writing, and consulting, he helps IT professionals understand, use, and make better decisions about enterprise software. </li></ul><ul><li>David has been the keynote speaker for dozens of conferences and events in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Latin America. His popular seminars have been attended by tens of thousands of developers, architects, and decision makers in forty countries. </li></ul><ul><li>David’s books have been published in ten languages and used in courses at MIT, ETH Zurich, and many other universities. He is Series Editor for Addison-Wesley’s award-winning Independent Technology Guides , and he has been a regular columnist for several publications. In his consulting practice, David has helped clients such as Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Stanford University, and Target Corporation adopt new technologies, market new products, train their sales staffs, and create business plans. </li></ul><ul><li>David’s comments have appeared in The New York Times, CNN.com, and various other publications. Earlier in his career, he wrote software for supercomputers, chaired a U.S. national standardization working group, and played keyboards with the Peabody-award-winning Children’s Radio Theater. David holds a B.S. in Economics and an M.S. in Computer Science, both from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. </li></ul>
  • 52. Ask The Experts Get Your Questions Answered <ul><li>You can find me at the Microsoft Ask the Experts area, located in the Exhibition Hall: </li></ul><ul><li>Friday 10 November Lunch </li></ul>
  • 53.  
  • 54.  
  • 55. © 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. This presentation is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN THIS SUMMARY.

×