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

From: Reza Rahman <>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:48:35 -0400


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda DeMichiel []
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:51 PM
> To:
> 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 * RMI/IIOP has been largely superseded by modern web technologies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