Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[ejb-dev] Fwd: Fwd: [VOTE] Handling of PortableRemoteObject.narrow
FYI

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Fwd: [ejb-dev] [VOTE] Handling of PortableRemoteObject.narrow
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:41:46 +0000
From: Lance Andersen <lance.andersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: ejb developer discussions <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>


Sorry, if I am jumping in late but I am not typically following ejb-dev.

Creating the signatures and running the signatures for javax.rmi.PortableRemoteObject when needed is not that difficult of a task.  You can look at what I did for CTS to support both JTA 1..2 or 1.3

Signatures are an important part of the TCK validation and it starts to become a very slippery slope when you start to decide that well this API is required but we don’t care if the signatures are what we expect.    The TCKs, including the signature tests are there to ensure that what is defined/required by a specification/technology are there and not extended.

Once you make a decision to ignore or validate requirements, it becomes difficult to walk back at a later date.

Compliance is an extremely important part of the specification process so I would recommend that you do not go down the path of ignoring the need of signature validation in this case.

Best
Lance


Begin forwarded message:

From: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ejb-dev] [VOTE] Handling of PortableRemoteObject.narrow
Date: March 1, 2021 at 7:50:07 PM PST
To: ejb developer discussions <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: ejb developer discussions <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Here's the vote as promised last week.  I think I can predict the outcome based on recent conversation, but as we had some miscommunication here an explicit choice / request for input from everyone would be very good.

As noted in the discussion, the javax.rmi.PortableRemoteObject class has been removed from the JDK so there is some explicit action needed from us to guarantee the portability of applications on JDK 11.

A. PortableRemoteObject.narrow must remain a requirement for users and servers that support EJB 2.x remote interfaces, which is part of the Enterprise Beans 2.x API optional group.  Signature tests will be added to the TCK to verify servers that implement the Enterprise Beans 2.x API optional group are compliant.  No specification changes in the Platform or Enterprise Beans specs would be needed for this approach.

B. PortableRemoteObject.narrow is removed, required for no one, and servers deal with this under the covers as they do for EJB 3.0 remote interfaces.  The section of the Platform spec that states PortableRemoteObject.narrow will be updated for Jakarta EE 9.1  Enterprise Beans spec would be updated at some later date to reflect this is no longer needed.  The PortableRemoteObject.narrow calls in the TCK would be removed.

Both options are orthogonal to if a server does or does not support COBRA.

Let's aim to keep this open for 72 hours so this can be definitively wrapped up Friday morning.


--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
_______________________________________________
ejb-dev mailing list
ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ejb-dev





Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen@xxxxxxxxxx



Back to the top