I'm proposing this extension from practical reasons as it would enable configuration of fully secured iiop invocations - the feature that was present in ORB implementation that we used previously (JacORB). ORB specification allows adding new corbaloc protocols if necessary:
"This specification only defines use of iiop with corbaloc. New protocols can be added to corbaloc as required. Each new protocol must implement the <future_prot_addr> component of the URL and define described in corbaloc URL." ORB Architecture Specification v3.3, Part 2: CORBA Interoperability, 7.6.10.6 Regards, Tomek -- Tomasz Adamski Software Engineer JBoss by Red Hat ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Bateman" <alan.bate...@oracle.com> > To: "Andrew Dinn" <ad...@redhat.com>, "Tomasz Adamski" <tadam...@redhat.com>, > core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 4:02:30 PM > Subject: Re: RFR: 8152084: Introduction of ssliop protocol to corbaloc > > On 03/05/2016 14:29, Andrew Dinn wrote: > > > > On 19/04/16 18:58, Tomasz Adamski wrote: > >> Hello All, > >> > >> I would like to propose an extension to corbaloc resolution - the > >> ssliop protocol. IORs created from corbaloc url with ssliop protocol > >> will contain SSL tagged component with indication that secured > >> invocation is required. As a result, connection to the resolved > >> object will have to be secured. > >> > >> I'm attaching a webrev of proposed enhancement: > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~adinn/tomaszadamski/8152084/ > >> > >> Regards, Tomek > > Would someone care to comment on this enhancement which was proposed 2 > > weeks ago and has had no response? At the very least can someone confirm > > whether this is the right list for such discussion? > > > There isn't a specific list for CORBA here so using core-libs-dev should > be fine. > > In general then CORBA is legacy so it somewhat surprising to look at > rev'ing the API in the JDK now. I think it is >12 years since there has > been any updates. Do you, or Tomek, have any references to the OMG specs > for the proposal? > > -Alan. >
