users@javaee-spec.java.net

[javaee-spec users] [jsr366-experts] Re: Proposed Optionality of CORBA / IIOP interop

From: Jeff Genender <jgenender_at_savoirtech.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:13:46 -0600

I totally agree… its time for CORBA to go…

Jeff


> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>
> When CORBA support was first added to Java SE, distributed objects
> were a popular way to structure applications, and CORBA provided a
> standard protocol to interact with non-Java applications as an
> alternative to the Java-specific JRMP protocol used by RMI. This was
> a natural fit for EJB, which started as a distributed object
> technology for enterprise applications, and thus CORBA support was a
> required part of Java EE.
>
> The industry has learned much from CORBA and has since moved on, first
> to SOAP web services and most recently to REST web services. REST web
> services generally provide a better way to interoperate between
> distributed components of an application, and between applications
> written in multiple languages.
>
> We believe it is time to deemphasize CORBA support and make it
> optional in the platform. The first step here would be to make it
> Proposed Optional in Java EE 8. CORBA support is a required component
> of Java SE 8, which would not change. The additional requirements
> related to CORBA in Java EE 8, such as the use of RMI-IIOP with EJB,
> would be made Proposed Optional.
>
> Since the EJB 2.x remote interfaces (EJBHome and EJBObject interfaces)
> require the use of RMI-IIOP, we propose that support for the EJB 2.x
> client view (EJBHome, EJBObject, EJBLocalHome, EJBLocalObject) be made
> Proposed Optional as well, since it was superseded by the simplications
> of EJB 3.0 that were made as part of Java EE 5. Note that support for
> remote EJBs is still required, since the remote interfaces defined by
> EJB 3.0 are not required to use CORBA. In addition, EJBs can be used
> to provide both REST and SOAP-based web services for remote access.
>
> Please let us know whether you support this proposed change or not.
>
> thanks,
>
> -Linda