An inside look at Microsoft’s recent Visual J++ conference

I must admit that, as founder of a Java user group, I had some skepticism about attending the Microsoft Visual J++ Developer Conference and Exposition. After accepting the assignment (or, more accurately, after RSVPing to Microsoft’s offer of a complimentary pass to the conference in Los Angeles, CA, April 28-30), I labored toward objectivity and ultimately believe I attained it. After all, I have to admit that Microsoft, a latecomer to Java, is already vying for Java supremacy, offering competitive technology, and claiming a big share of the Java tools market.

A big part of Microsoft’s Java strategy is, of course, Visual J++. At this conference, Microsoft sought to showcase its latest version of VJ++ — what Microsoft says is currently the most popular Java development environment — plus the company’s related products and technologies.

Smooth event

As an event organizer myself, I was impressed by the meticulous detail — from the conference bag full of Microsoft and ISV software to the conference signs and displays — executed by the organizers in the first-rate Bonaventure Hotel venue. The keynote speakers, ex-Borlanders Anders Hejlsberg (architect of VJ++ and WFC) and Bill Dunlap (VJ++ product manager), delivered pleasant, engrossing infomercials that broke no new technical ground.

Hejlsberg in particular had the engineering and technical capacity to command his subject, the case for Visual J++ 6.0 and its application development framework, the Windows Foundation Classes (WFC). These products give the developer a set of class libraries to build Windows applications in Java. Hejlsberg didn’t discuss specific WFC features because WFC is basically a wrapper layer around Win32; it offers no support for JavaBeans, steering its users, instead, toward the Component Object Model (COM) and ActiveX. According to Hejlsberg, the Microsoft virtual machine (VM) is now faster than Sun’s version, a lead that I suspect may change hands many times in the coming months.

Most of Hejlsberg’s material was previewed in an interview posted recently on Microsoft’s Web site. To the credit of all speakers, gratuitous disparagement of Sun’s rival VM was kept to an acceptable minimum.

Impressive speakers

A stellar lineup of speakers, including Cay Horstmann and Richard Hale Shaw, followed. They discussed a range of topics including Dynamic HTML, WFC, integrating Java, COM, and ActiveX, and developing applications for Windows CE. Packaging and deployment were covered in depth, and the various arcana of the IE 4.0 Java Package Manager were illuminated. Use of the Microsoft Transaction Server with Java was explained and interaction between ActiveX Data Objects and Java was hypothesized. There were also a couple of talks on how to use the Microsoft Transaction Server (MTS) and ActiveX Data Objects (ADO) with the Dynamic Component Object Model (DCOM) and Java.

A highlight of the conference was the two-hour discussion with the VJ++ 6.0 development team. Hejlsberg and his colleagues deftly handled provocative engineering questions and highlighted the features of Visual J++ 6.0. They described a product to be reckoned with in the technical arena, but the conference as a whole failed to expand its focus to the enterprise level.

Only about 400 people attended the conference — a low turnout for a national event, especially compared to JavaOne ’98 attendance of approximately 14,000. But the 400 attendees (mostly VB, MFC, and Win32 programmers) generally exhibited good Java comprehension. Enough college professors had been flown in from near and far to evidence a deliberate design — to influence the hearts and minds of America’s young people.

Only eight or nine companies exhibited their wares at the conference. Key vendors included Stingray Software (building Windows class library extensions and MFC toolkits) and NuMega (boosting performance and reliability of Java applications and components). None of the exhibitors had Internet access from their booths, which compromised their ability to demonstrate Internet applications, but did not overly detract from the message that Visual J++ 6.0 is a serious product with a future.

Questions remain

A company weighing Visual J++ 6.0 against pure Java must ask itself certain questions: How important is a totally universal cross-platform environment to the strategic plan? Does Planet Wintel offer the security of manifest achievements, or the captivity of Microsoft products that might preclude other options later on? Is Visual J++ 6.0 a superior development environment for seamless integration of the enterprise, or an alternative to pure Java development? I for one am eager to see these questions, not to mention this epic contest, resolved in my lifetime.