Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] RMI-IIOP and CORBA

Quickly responding here though we can talk about it more in the call.

I'm not sure how much of this common knowledge or lost information, so I may be communicating something already know.  It is possible to implement remote EJBs without RMI or IIOP.  WebLogic has T3 which was famously fast in the 1998 time frame and I suspect still in the product.  OpenEJB has its own protocol as well.  JBoss used the stock jvm implementation of RMI for its out-of-the box impl.

In this context RMI-IIOP compatible means roughly that the classes used by an application developer in their remote interfaces must be serializable in a way that doesn't conflict with RMI or IIOP and that the server must do the same with the protocol it uses: i.e if there are seralizable callbacks you have to call them, etc.

So here's where we landed to my understanding:

 - We did vote to remove the EJB interop requirements.  These were the only hard requirements that forced an ORB to be present.  It does allow an implementation to remove CORBA from your platform.

 - We did not vote to remove remote EJB calls (EJB 2.x views), therefore `javax.rmi` as it stands is still needed.  My memory is they are optional, however (i need to double-check that).  The javax.rmi.* package does appear to be in Java 11, so we appear safe.  

What this means in practice should be this:

 - For implementations that have both CORBA and their custom protocol, they can drop CORBA without issue and continue without shipping an ORB.

 - For implementations that only have CORBA, they still can drop support for EJB 2.x views as they are optional and continue without shipping an ORB.

 - For implementations that only have CORBA and must implement everything optional, there is no real change.

David Blevins

> On Jan 10, 2020, at 5:47 PM, Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I certainly assumed RMI-IIOP removal was included in the EJB interoperability removal.
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 7:43 PM Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You tell me!  :-)
> If everyone implicitly just "knew" what they were voting for, and this is more
> of a clarification than a change, you could probably continue with the vote as
> is.  But if there's any confusion over what people are already voting for, you
> probably need to reset and restart the vote.
> Steve Millidge (Payara) wrote on 1/10/20 1:56 AM:
> > I agree it would be better to be explicit about it in the release plan although it is somewhat implicit. What does that mean for votes currently ongoing though?
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top