[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] RMI-IIOP and CORBA
|
On 9/30/20 10:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
All,
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.
 - https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/pull/249
<https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/pull/249>
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?
Do we need to support EJB use of javax.rmi.portableremoteobject which
was removed for Java 11 via https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/320? There
really is no javax.rmi support in JDK 11 since Corba was removed.
I'm asking more for the JDK 11 support that we expect to follow the
release of Jakarta EE 9, as this impacts the Platform TCK plan to
deliver such follow on support.
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. Â 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
http://twitter.com/dblevins <http://twitter.com/dblevins>
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I just realized that the Jakarta EE 9 Release Plan doesn't say anything
explicit about RMI-IIOP or CORBA. Â Â 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. Â 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. Â (The javax.rmi APIs would not be migrated to the jakarta
namespace.)
Comments?
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev