users@javaee-spec.java.net

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

From: Jeff Genender <jgenender_at_savoirtech.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:33:34 -0600

I would support the removal and agree with reasoning.

Jeff


On May 10, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> 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 * RMI/IIOP has been largely superseded by modern web technologies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
>