|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.Â - 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.comOn 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 willneed 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 listjakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit_______________________________________________ jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
Back to the top