20000613: Time Frames for Java Migration?

>From: "Neil R. Smith" <address@hidden>
>Organization: Texas A&M
>Keywords: 200006131813.e5DIDlT14733 java transition

Neil-

>Hi.  As you may know, we've submitted a proposal for upgrading
>our Met. teaching lab with DEC workstations.  3rd hand info
>about what transpired at the Policy Committee mtng suggests that
>it has minimal chance for approval if future Unidata software 
>requirements conflict with current DEC/Compaq Java3D policy.  

This is not quite true.  The proposal will be evaluated on how
well it meets the criteria set forth in the request for proposals.
If the proposal is selected for funding, it may come with a caveat
to look at other hardware because of the potential of incompatibility
with Unidata's Java strategy.

As for Java 3D, Compaq's page says that they don't have plans
to license Java 3D, but they will reevaluate this position if
the customer plans indicate a change in their strategy.  See:

http://www.digital.com/java/faq/faq_general.html

Java 3D is a central part of our MetApps strategy, however there
will be applications that use only the 2D portions of Java.

>OK. Fine with me.  But then I find myself quite confused about 
>Unidata's plans and when they might begin to be felt by the 
>user community.

You're not the first, and probably won't be the last. ;-)  Seriously,
we need to do a better job of educating the community.  We have been
trying to do this through newsletter articles.  I'll look at adding 
something to the MetApps web pages that talks about our transition
strategy.  

>First,
> -- can you tell me what current Unidata software packages
>will be converted from present technology to/ or replaced
>by Java architecture;

The goal is to eventually replace the functionality and add to the
current supported packages (McIDAS and GEMPAK) with Java applications/
components.  See the recent Unidata newsletter article:

http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/publications/newsletters/Fall99.NL/metapps.html

which explains our transition strategy.

also see:

http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/community/committees/umada/goals.html

which explains the goals of the MetApps Java project.

It is inevitable that McIDAS and GEMPAK will _eventually_ go away, but
there is absolutely no timeframe for this.  It is our position that we
will not drop support for the packages users are using now until the
new Java applications can do everything and more than them, AND the
users are ready/able/wanting to move.

>then, 
> -- what are the development/implementation time lines for the 
>migration of these packages;

The original goal was to have fully functional Java applications
available to the community by 2003.  We will have applications 
available by then that will encompass a large portion of the
current functionality of GEMPAK and McIDAS and have additional
features (ie: 3D animations/graphics). But as the article
above mentions, we see the current packages continuing their central
role beyond 2003.  

>also,
> -- how long into the migration timeline will the current
>Unidata software packages continue to be supported, and to
>what degree, and on what platforms?

Again, we plan to continue supporting the current applications
until they can be replaced with Java alternatives.  The decisions
of which platforms to support are determined by the Policy Committee.
The UPC provides input to these decisions based on industry and 
community trends and UPC resources to support a particular platform.
The list of currently supported platforms is available at:

http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/platforms.html

I think the article explains in more detail how we plan our transition
to Java, but if you have further questions on this issue, let us know.

Don Murray

>From:      "Neil R. Smith" <address@hidden>
>Date:      Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:26:37 -0500
>
>Many thanks for your response.  We'll chew on it a bit.  -Neil