Terimaki Tojay

I don't think this falls under NDA.

I worked with Amdocs guys on a telecom app about 5 years ago. Believe me, it was a nightmare. Let me tell you about the architecture and then you figure out how it is yourself:

1. Oracle Database : No referencial integrity configuration (Foriegn keys etc.)
2. Data accessed is only from stored procedures. All referencial intergrity is taken care of here. Not much business logic here.
3. These stored procedures are accessed by COBOL code compiled into Unix based binaries. All the business logic is in here.
4. COBOL code is called from C++ wrappers, which in turn act as CORBA server side objects. The ORB they used was Orbix 2.0.

So much for the server side. Sit tight for the control flow on the client side otherwise you are gonna fall off

1. This is a webbased application built using JSP (v0.9) and servlets. JSP/Servlets make use of the command pattern EXTENSIVELY. The servlet container is JRun. JRun is attached to NetScape Enterprise server.
2. The servlets use EJBs (BMP) to get the data. EJBS are housed in WebLogic 3.1.
3. Now hold on, ok? EJBS use Amdocs' custom written JDBC driver to connect to the database.
4. Sit tight. The custom JDBC driver is not really a JDBC driver, it just implements the JDBC interfaces. Under the hood, it is really a CORBA client and connects to CORBA objects published by the server side.

Besides all this, to keep the whole application running they also had a couple of executables (kind of monitoring servers) that made sure all the components of the application are working fine.

My company bought this whole crap with source code and put us to support and enhance it. The project folded after 1 year.

I really admire the Amdocs developers who had the guts to write their own JDBC driver and stuff. While the project was a failure, I learned A LOT of technology due to it. I was not much experienced at that time and JSP/Servlet/EJB had just come out. I learnt all my J2EE concepts in through details (inner workings) in that project and I am where I am today partly because of that. I have never flunked a J2EE interview till date

Later on, while interacting with them, I learned that they have a separate "infrastructure" team that directs various teams - COBOL/Database and JSP/Servlet/EJB. The reason is that they had a lot of people with excellent business domain knowledge but they used to develop stand alone as well as mainframe apps. With the advent of Webbased stuff, they wanted to leverage the work done by those guys and still provide web based interface. So the same architecture is followed in MANY of Amdocs applications.

Sorry for the nostalgia guys...but I just remembered another funny character from LotPot - Ghaseeta Ram, who had 20 years of exp. in everything (Bees saal ka tajurba)

Originally posted by R K Singh:


I cant pronounce your name but still spiderman, superman etc. were available in not so famous comics series called .... name used to start with G.. if I am not wrong then Goversons comics. It was the publication of Mayapuri House[remember Madhu-Muskan ??] (again if my memory serves correctly).
True, they were pretty expensive compare to other comics. When other comics rate was Rs. 2/- at that time these comics price were Rs. 5/-

Even Astrix was available in Hindi & English by the same publication....
Even I read Zoro also as a series in D..... comics [they also used to print Micky Mouse.]

I still must be having those comics somewhere at my home....

Oh yes, Indrajaal comics, the only Indian character it used to publish was Bahadur(and her girl friend Nanda ... or what was her name.. and that Mukhiya who used to say "Ganga Maiya Kee Kasam")...

oh.... I am getting old ..

But these days I see an abnormal(or normal) behavior in kids .. they dont like comics anymore .. for them entertainment means TV

Yes!!! I remember madhumuskan and its hero, Daku PaanSingh
Then there were Motu-Patlu (in Lot-pot, I guess). Madhu Muskan had another very funny character UncleJi or something. Also Chotu-Lambu.

I saw some comics that kids read these days very recently. I felt very bad. Instead of clean fun, today's comics show sex and violence just toooooo much. I couldn't even read more than 2-3 pages.

Originally posted by R K Singh:


I object my lord .... Ram-Rahim were character from Manoj comics not from Diamond comics.

I am not 100% sure but I think Manoj comics did not really have a long series. They had different heros. Anyway, you may be right.

But you are 100% wrong on Bahadur's girlfriend. Her name is Bela and not Nanda

In India, I these comic books were published by "Indra Jaal Comics". They had all the series' - Phantom, Mandrake, Flash Gordon, Rip Kirby except Spiderman and Superman. Besides these they also had an Indian superhero series of "Bahadur". I never even saw Spiderman/Superman comics.

Another highly successful Indian comics were(are?) Diamond comics. They mastered the "paired heros" such as : Mama-Bhanja, Chacha-Bhatija, Lambu-Motu, Rajan-Iqbal, Ram-Rahim, and of course the lovable Chacha Chaudhary

Boy, we used to fight for all these.

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:


It is very Indian. It means pure.

Common misconception. Shuddh means pure. Pavitr means godly/holy. Eg. Ganga-jal (water of Ganga river) is considered Pavitr. It is no more "shuddh" though While home made Ghee is shuddh but not pavitr.

The way I see it is, Europe is just bunch of thugs and looters who are enjoying the wealth they robbed from their colonies. While America is a country of hard working and enterprising people who have earned their riches the "fair" way.

Europe is histroy, while America is the future

Originally posted by R K Singh:

As per new theory, even they need not to be in substantial number to create problem. [I dont know, should I put winking smiley or not]
I think you are talking about fanatic Muslims.
There is a big difference between fanatic X and X.
Thats true for all religions, and Muslims are not exception.
Just look around, you might find a lot of fanatics in your own religion, which happens to be mine too, even though they might be in majority.
You might find fanatic christian who will tell you that Iraq war is war against Islam.
And following one's religion does not make one fanatic.
I think, I will never agree that one particular group has one common characteristics [at least not in negative sense].

Show me one case where Hindus/Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs are in substantial number but still in minorty and are causing problem to the majority/country as a whole?
On the other hand where ever Muslims (and to some extent Christians) get a little bit of foothold, they start causing trouble. Their whole ideology is to 'Islam'wash the whole world. Look what they did to Mideast. And their religion encourages them to do the same to all over the world.

Originally posted by R K Singh:

I have not found the reason till now but obviously something must be wrong in the jews (in your wordings) that whereever they went they created problem and thrown out, now even they got their own so called land but still they cant live in peace.

The same can be said about Muslims. Whereever they are in substantial numbers (but in minority) they create problems. They got everything but still cant live and let others live in peace. Now, since muslim is not an ethnicity so there must be some problem in the religion itself.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

So you take one point out of the three I mentioned and you dismiss the argument as irrelevant? Nice ploy!

Which point of yours that was relevent to the discussion and that I did not answer?

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

What makes you so different from the radicals who claim their religion is superior to others? You seem to be stating the same..

OK, so people here can say that Christianity is superior and morally better than Islam and that is ok. But if I point out that Christianity is no different from Islam because they both share the same doctrine of propagating their own religion by any means then that makes me a radical. I clearly said that Hinduism is a lot better than these "broker to heaven" religions, "ON THIS ISSUE". Did you not read that?
My personal belief is that all religions are crap and outdated. However, when people started talking about moral supriority of their religion over Islam, I just wanted to prove that their religion is as crappy and immoral as Islam. Hinduism is better that both in that respect.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Some radical Islamist once said to muslims all around the world, "We may belong to their nationality, but we all owe to our own religion". I see no difference between your viewpoint and one above.

Because you haven't been reading my posts unbiasedly. I have never said or meant whatever you are ascribing to me here.

People who are bitching about treatment of minorities in India should read this article: http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/22rajeev.htm

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You keep accusing people who refuse to accept your arguments as valid of this type of thing. I believe you are correct in that it would be pointless to continue this discussion.

Jason, show me one post where I have done this before. This is the first time I have said that I can't discuss with somebody who is bringing absolutely irrelevent points.
You haven't yet answered the point blank questions that I asked you in my earlier post. Is it because you don't have any answers? or you don't want to answer?

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Should I begin with the parents who stabbed their own daughter because she fell in love with a muslim boy or should I start with the Shiv-Sena leader who says that Hindus must start suicide bombing campaigns against other religions?

You are getting confused with the religion and the people who practice it. Hinduism does not say kill your daughter if she falls love with a muslim. Islam does say kill kafirs. Christianity does preach conversion.
You know what, forget it. You are bringing totally arbitrary logic into this discussion. There is no point in discussing further. Thank you.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

It does.. here is a quote from you:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:
So Christians can definitely accuse muslims of terrorism but not no a moral ground
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are contradicting yourself in the two quotes above. In one you are stating that Christians cannot claim the ground of morality and in the other you are stating that this is not a discussion on the moral grounds of these accusations.

What??? You are taking my comments totally out of context. I said the first thing about this:
"Let me educate you a bit here.. your claims of hypocrisy are actually misled. If a person is travelling at 80mph on a 55mph highway and tells another person not to exceed the speed limit for his/her own safety is it wrong? It may be hypocritical of that person to say so.. but it does not diminish the truth in that statement. So while Christians in the past may have been responsible for pretty much the same kinds of actions and it may be "hypocritical" of them to complain against it, though I personally do not think so, it does not diminish the truth in any of their statements.."
This was your reponse to my comment:
"It stinks of hypocricy".
When did I say it is not a discussion on the moral grounds? By pointing out the hypocricy, I am trying to prove that neither Christians nor Muslims are on a higher moral ground. You brought up the "truth" and untruth stuff. The discussion has nothing to do with that.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

I do, but I am afraid you do not! Going by the same logic why cannot Christians today accuse muslims of committing and abetting heinous acts on humanity?

Because their religion also promotes the same thing. They denigrate other peoples beliefs.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Like what? Its nice and dandy to throw around accusations but back them up, please..

The same comment applies to you too. First you give facts on your comment, "Some Hindus have in the past committed worse atrocities". Then ask for my facts.