It would be great to remove the requirement on this part as, as said in
the proposal, new technologies are providing this interoperability support.
Also, RMI/iiop implementations are not the most modular components.
Regards,
Florent
On 05/10/2012 09:50 PM, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>
> 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 * RMI/IIOP has been largely superseded by modern web technologies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
>