users@javaee-spec.java.net

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

From: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:17:06 +0200

+1 of course

Antonio

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jeff Genender <jgenender_at_savoirtech.com>
wrote:

> 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 Proposed Optional as well, since it was superseded by the simplications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
>
>


-- 
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> |
Pluralsight
<http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris
JUG <http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>