| Â 2.Method | | | | corporate |
| Â A survey questionnaire was designed and was | | | | . |
| given to few corporate users who were using both of | | | | Â |
| these technologies or either of these technologies. The | | | | The above table is the response summary of the 8 |
| questionnaire was based on previous comparative | | | | respondents from different reputed MNCs from India; |
| studies on these two platforms. These Questions are | | | | All the executives are using their respective platforms |
| based on current scenarios. | | | | since 3-5 years. Incase of .NET out of 175 answers |
| Â | | | | 103 responses state that they are completely satisfied |
| 3. The Questionnaire | | | | with the platform and 110 responses on J2EE |
| Â | | | | platform.66 responses indicate that they are partially |
| The questionnaire [1]-[7] is as follows; | | | | satisfied with .NET platform and 57 responses indicate |
| 1. 1.     How satisfied are you with .NET/J2EE | | | | that they are partially satisfied with J2EE platform. Not |
| architecture?a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not | | | | at all satisfied responses are negligible in both the |
| at all | | | | cases. Completely satisfied are 59% in case of .NET |
| (Based on the n-tier architecture) | | | | and 63% in case of J2EE.38% of the responses are |
| 1. 2.     How best are the object oriented | | | | partially satisfied in case of .NET and 33% in case of |
| Concepts implemented in .NET/J2EE?a. Completely  | | | | J2EE. |
| b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1. 3.     How well the Support technologies are | | | | From the above responses one can conclude that the |
| utilized in various applications of .NET/J2EE? | | | | users are very much satisfied in case of both of the |
| 2. a.      Distribution protocola. Completely  b. | | | | platforms and J2EE being slightly higher in this case. |
| Partially          c. Not at all | | | | This indicates the concepts in J2EE are more clearly |
| 1. b.     Firewalla. Completely  b. | | | | visible to the user than in case of .NET. |
| Partially          c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1. c.      HTML page cachinga. Completely  b. | | | | The answers for Questions 3b-Firewall, |
| Partially          c. Not at all | | | | 5a-Infrastucture, 6e-Mainframe DB Connectivity, and |
| 1. How effective are Presentation tier technologies of | | | | framework in latest versions are not upto the |
| .NET/J2EE? | | | | satisfactory level of the users. On both the platforms |
| 2. Infrastructurea. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | | the users are not fully satisfied with the firewall |
| Not at all | | | | security, infrastructure and Mainframe DB connectivity. |
| 1. Â | | | | Hence both the platforms need a considerable amount |
| 2. Programming model.a. Completely  b. | | | | of improvement in these cases. The users are also |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | not fully satisfied with the framework of the latest |
| 1. Â | | | | versions on both the platforms. |
| 2. High availabilitya. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | |  |
| Not at all | | | | Also the cost of developing an application should still |
| 1. Â | | | | come in case of both the platforms as per the opinion |
| 2. Load balancinga. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | | of the developers. (QNo 15) |
| Not at all | | | | Â |
| 1. Â | | | | From the observations .NET was more easy to use |
| 2. Managementa. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | | than J2EE.While J2EE had a number of IDEs than |
| Not at all | | | | .NET. The users of J2EE were very much happy to |
| 1. How best are the services provided by Middle tier | | | | have a number of IDEs since they can pick any one |
| technologies in .NET/J2EE? | | | | of those depending on their interest. Even if all the IDEs |
| 2. Infrastructurea. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | | got corrupted in their system they had the option of |
| Not at all | | | | windows editor or notepad where they can write the |
| 1. Â | | | | code and execute it without any difficulty. Whereas |
| 2. Programming toola. Completely  b. Partially    | | | | this facility is not there in case of .NET.Regadring the |
| c. Not at all | | | | design of the IDE; .NET IDE had a better design than |
| 1. Â | | | | J2EE.J2EE design is clumsy than .NET. |
| 2. High availabilitya. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | |  |
| Not at all | | | | Â |
| 1. Â | | | | 7. |
| 2. Load balancinga. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | |                        |
| Not at all | | | | Â |
| 1. Â | | | | Â |
| 2. Security APIa. Completely  b. Partially    c. | | | | .NET |
| Not at all | | | | %pComplete |
| 1. Â | | | | 0.59 |
| 2. Message Queue APIa. Completely  b. | | | | 58.86pPartial |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 0.38 |
| 1. Â | | | | 37.71pNot at all |
| 2. Asynchronous/synchronous componentsa. | | | | 0.01 |
| Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 1.14 |
| 1. Â | | | | No response |
| 2. Naming and Directory Servicea. Completely  b. | | | | 0.0025 |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 0.25 |
| 1. How reliable are Data tier technologies in .NET | | | | Â j2EE |
| J2EE? | | | | % |
| 2. Distributed transactiona. Completely  b. | | | | PComplete |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 0.63 |
| 1. Â | | | | 62.86 |
| 2. Relational DB APIa. Completely  b. Partially    | | | | Ppartial |
| c. Not at all | | | | 0.33 |
| 1. Â | | | | 32.57pNot at all |
| 2. Hierarchical DB APIa. Completely  b. | | | | 0.05 |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 4.57 |
| 1. Â | | | | No response |
| 2. Database storagea. Completely  b. | | | | 0.0094 |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 0.94 |
| 1. Â | | | | Â |
| 2. Mainframe DB connectivitya. Completely  b. | | | |  |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1. What is ease of use of Frame Work Technologies in | | | | Â |
| .NET/J2EE? | | | | Â |
| 2. 1.0a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1. Â | | | | Â |
| 2. 1.1a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1. Â | | | | Â |
| 2. 2.0a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1. Â | | | | Â |
| 2. 3.0a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | |  |
| 1.  | | | | 8. Responses Summary: |
| 2. 3.5a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | |             |
| 1. What is overall maturity of .NET/J2EE | | | | Â |
| technologies?a. Completely  b. Partially    c. Not | | | | Complete |
| at all | | | | Partial |
| 1. How strong are the Interoperability and Web | | | | Notatall |
| Services provided in .NET/J2EE?[1]a. Completely  b. | | | | Total |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | .NET |
| 1. How much scalable are the applications developed | | | | 103 |
| through .NET/J2EE?a. Completely  b. Partially    | | | | 66 |
| c. Not at all | | | | 2 |
| 1. How best is the framework support provided in .NET | | | | 171 |
| J2EE for e-commerce & telecom solutions?[5]a. | | | | J2EE |
| Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 110 |
| 1. How simple is the language used in developing .NET | | | | 57 |
| J2EE applications?a. Completely  b. Partially    | | | | 8 |
| c. Not at all | | | | 175 |
| 1. How portable are the applications in .NET/J2EE?a. | | | | Â |
| Completely  b. Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 213 |
| 1. How effective is the Client device independence in | | | | 123 |
| .NET/J2EE applications?a. Completely  b. | | | | 10 |
| Partially    c. Not at all | | | | 346 |
| 1. What is cost of developing applications using .NET | | | | Â |
| J2EE?[7]a. High  b. Medium   c. Low | | | |  |
| 1. What is the performance level of developing | | | | Â |
| applications in .NET/J2EE?[6]a. High  b. Medium   | | | |  |
| c. Low | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| 4. People who responded to the Questionnaire were: | | | | From the response summaries the following graphs |
| Â | | | | were plotted and their probabilities were taken. |
| 1. Mr.Nallathiga Murali Krishna-IBM Hyderabad working | | | | Probabilities have been taken in order to calculate |
| on j2EE Platform since 5 years | | | | naïve Bayesian classifiers. |
| 2. Mr.Madabhushi Srikanth- IBM Hyderabad working on | | | | Â |
| j2EE Platform since 5 years | | | | Â |
| 3. Mr.Vinay Chilakamarri-IBM Hyderabad working on | | | | 9. Graphs on the results: |
| j2ee Platform since 3 years (from USA) | | | |  |
| 4. Mr. Krishna Kishore - InfoSys Hyderabad working on | | | | Â |
| .NET Platform since 3 years | | | | Â |
| 5. Mr. Praveen Kumar- InfoSys Hyderabad working on | | | | Â |
| .NET Platform since 3 years | | | | Â |
| 6. Mr.Padala Ravindra-Mahindra Satyam Pune, working | | | | Â |
| on j2ee platform since 5 years | | | | Â |
| 7. Ms.Chandana-InfoSys Hyderabad working on .NET | | | | Â |
| Platform since 3 years | | | | Â |
| 8. Ms.PadmaLatha- InfoSys Hyderabad working on | | | | Â |
| .NET Platform since 3 years | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| 5.The Responses: | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| %ages | | | | Â |
| .netj2ee | | | | Â |
| Complete | | | | Â |
| 0.59 | | | | Â |
| 0.63 | | | | Â |
| Partial | | | | Â |
| 0.38 | | | | Â |
| 0.33 | | | | Â |
| Notatall | | | | Â |
| 0.01 | | | | Â |
| 0.05 | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| Â | | | | Â |
| Complete | | | | Â |
| Partial | | | | Â |
| Notatall | | | | Â |
| Total | | | | Â |
| .NET | | | | 10. Conclusions: |
| 103 | | | | While .NET and J2EE go hand in hand in many |
| 66 | | | | corporates there will be a stage that .Net is likely to |
| 2 | | | | dominate J2EE because of its ease of use and one |
| 171 | | | | can build faster  applications than J2EE.We can also |
| J2EE | | | | apply MUSA(MultiCriteria User Satisfaction Analysis) |
| 110 | | | | method in order to find out how satisfied are with each |
| 57 | | | | platform and compare them. |
| 8 | | | | Â |
| 175 | | | | References: |
| Total | | | | [1]Â Â The great debate:Â J2EE vs. .Net- Does one |
| 213 | | | | Web services platform dominate the other? By |
| 123 | | | | Jonathan Lurie and R. Jason Belanger, JavaWorld.com, |
| 10 | | | | 03/08/02- |
| 346 | | | | [2]Â Â Microsoft .NET vs. J2EE: How Do They Stack |
| Â | | | | Up? |
| Â | | | | [3]Â Â J2EE vs. Microsoft.NET -A comparison of |
| Â | | | | building XML-based web services-By Chad Vawter |
| Â | | | | and Ed Roman June 2001, Prepared for Sun |
| Â | | | | Microsystems, Inc. |
| Â | | | | [4]Â Â J2EE vs. .NET-How One ISV Made the |
| Â | | | | Choice-White Paper |
| Â | | | | [5]Â Â Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE)Â versus The |
| 6. Applying Naive Bayes Classification [8] | | | | .NET Platform - Two Visions for eBusiness-By Roger |
| Â | | | | Sessions,ObjectWatch, Inc.March 28, 2001 |
| Prior probability of .net being satisfied= 103/346=0.28 | | | | [6]Â Â J2EE / .Net Smack down-Cedric |
| Prior probability of j2ee being satisfied=110/346=0.31 | | | | Beust-November 19th, 2002 |
| Â | | | | [7]Â Â Rumble in the jungle: J2EE versus .Net, Part |
| Likelihood of .net being satisfied= 0.59 | | | | 1-How do J2EE and Microsoft's .Net compare in |
| Likelihood of j2ee being satisfied=0.63 | | | | enterprise environments? -By Humphrey Sheil and |
| Â | | | | Michael Monteiro,JavaWorld.com, 06/28/02 |
| Probability of .net being satisfied=103/213=0.48 | | | | [8]Â Â Data Mining : Concepts and Techniques,2nd |
| Probability of j2ee being satisfied=110/213=0.51 | | | | Edition Jiawei Han and Micheline |
| Â | | | | Kamber-Elsevier-Morgan Kaufmann Publishers |
| Posterior probability of .net being | | | | Â |
| satisfied=0.28*0.59=0.17 | | | | Â |
| Posterior probability of j2ee being | | | | Â |
| satisfied=0.31*0.63=0.20 | | | | * Dr.RSD Waidabanu is HOD of ECE Dept |
| Â | | | | Govt.College of Engineering,Salem;VVN Kumar, Faculty |
| Finally we can conclude that j2ee satisfaction is little bit | | | | nformatics,Alluri Institute of Management |
| on the higher side than .net. But the difference being | | | | Sciences,Warangal. |
| negligible we can conclude that both are doing well for | | | | |