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

Thanks, David!  I will take a closer look later today (or tomorrow).

Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    

From:        David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        09/30/2020 21:54
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] RMI-IIOP and CORBA
Sent by:        jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx


I have a PR up that details the current state of RMI-IIOP, what remains and what doesn't, as well as some thoughts on how we might need to provide more portability if people start implementing more custom protocols.


I'm sensitive there is a bit of a bus factor with me on this; the very first line of open source and Java EE code I ever wrote was a custom protocol in OpenEJB.  My intent is to be complete enough with the contents and comments on the PR that we have enough material for others to understand the topic more clearly.

Could I request that we get more people to review it and ask questions here where they are permanently archived?

Things like Google protocol buffers could absolutely be used for EJB remote calls and if that becomes an interest, we will need to expand knowledge on this topic.  What remains of our RMI-IIOP guarantees is enough to allow something like that to happen without developers seeing odd inconsistencies in the serialized/deserialized object graphs.

David Blevins

On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I just realized that the Jakarta EE 9 Release Plan doesn't say anything
explicit about RMI-IIOP or CORBA.   They are both removed from JDK 11,
and Jakarta EE 9 explicitly removes EJB interoperability, which depends
on RMI-IIOP, but nothing is said about RMI-IIOP or CORBA themselves.

My original Jakarta EE 9 proposal was explicit that RMI-IIOP and CORBA
would not be included.  I think we should update the current plan to make
this explicit as well.

Note that this means any product providing backwards compatibility will
need to provide a complete ORB and RMI-IIOP support, including the javax.rmi
APIs.  (The javax.rmi APIs would not be migrated to the jakarta namespace.)

jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list

To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top