Chris Raber wrote:
>
> The EJB CORBA mapping specification describes how this should work.
>
> It is a question of whether a particular vendor supports it or not.
> GemStone/J
> for example is built on top of CORBA, so we will be able to support this
> eventually. We are not quite there yet. In the interim you can create a
> CORBA
> object and expose it's IDL to CORBA client, and have the implementation
> of that CORBA object simply turn around and invoke on EJB's.
I'm in the phase of having to decide if i use RMI or CORBA for my
proof-of-concept-prototype (based on Gemstone/J 2.01) and I'm not quite
sure if i understand the topic (and problems) fully.
- Is this really or problem ? Do i really have to decide now to use RMI
or CORBA now.
- would it make sense to use RMI now (easier ?) aand "upgrade" to CORBA
later ?
- could I write my clients using RMI and use RMI over IIOP later so that
i don't have to change my code to use CORBA ?
- ... or would it be possible (with not too much overhead) to put all
RMI/CORBA-specific code in some extra layer/classes so that i only have
to replace them later ?
- is (will) there a (automatic) way to use CORBA instead of RMI later
(just redeploying on a CORBA-capable EJB-server/container) ?
thanks to anybody who takes some time to clarify this topic,
sven
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sven-Uwe Meyer
Gruner+Jahr Electronic Media Service GmbH tel. : +49-40-370 377 29
Am Baumwall 11 fax. : +49-40-370 377 57
20459 Hamburg
Germany email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
