Skip to main content

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

  • From: "Reza Rahman" <reza_rahman@...>
  • To: <jsr342-experts@...>
  • Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:48:35 -0400
  • List-id: <jsr342-experts.javaee-spec.java.net>

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda DeMichiel [mailto:linda.demichiel@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:51 PM
> To: jsr342-experts@...
> Subject: [jsr342-experts] Java EE / EJB Interop support
> 
> 
> The Java EE Platform and EJB specifications currently require the 
> capability of
> using RMI-IIOP to export EJB components and to access EJB components over a
> network.  This requirement enables interoperability between Java EE 
> products.
> 
> It has been suggested that we consider removing the requirement for such
> interoperability support from the Java EE Platform and EJB specifications.
> 
> There are several reasons behind this proposed change:
> 
> * RMI/IIOP has been largely superseded by modern web technologies
>    that provide interoperability support, such as SOAP and REST.
>    Hence, few developers are currently relying on RMI/IIOP for this purpose.
> * Implementing the required support is seen as an unnecessary
>    burden on Java EE implementors.
> * There is a perception that this requirement makes Java EE seem
>    heavyweight at a time when we're trying to appeal to developers
>    who want a lightweight solution.
> 
> Removing this requirement would mean that an implementation of the Platform
> would still be required to support remote access to EJBs, but would not be
> required to use IIOP to do so.  That is, we would be removing requirements 
> that
> provide interoperability across products, but would not be removing
> requirements that require support for remote access within a single product,
> since other protocols could be used.
> 
> Further, please note that because Java EE 7 requires support for Java SE 7, 
> we
> would also not be removing requirements for the ability to use the CORBA
> functionality that is required as a part of Java SE.
> 
> If we pursue this direction, the first step, of course, would be to 
> designate
> support for RMI-IIOP interoperability as "Proposed Optional".
> 
> Please let us know whether you support this proposed change or not.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> -Linda




[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Java EE / EJB Interop support

Linda DeMichiel 05/10/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Jeff Genender 05/10/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

David Blevins 05/10/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Markus Eisele 05/11/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

David Blevins 05/11/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Werner Keil 05/11/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Florent BENOIT 05/11/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Jason T. Greene 05/11/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Werner Keil 05/14/2012

[javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

michael keith 05/14/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Java EE / EJB Interop support

Reza Rahman 05/17/2012
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close