Hey
Dan OConnor wrote:
> I just yesterday finished the chapter in the EJB 2.0 spec on
> support for distribution and interoperability. Although the 2.0 spec
> isn't final, it seems at first glance as though the proponents of
> interoperability through IIOP have carried the day. (I would love to
> see a response from the spec writers regarding the points made in
> the EJB-interest mailing list thread "Does IIOP matter.")
After having talked to all the "relevant people" at J1 one on this issue
I am 100% sure that this was a political decision and not a technical
one. Noone in the EJB 2.0 expert group could ever provide any argument
pro-IIOP (just as they did not provide any on E-I), and the pro-non-IIOP
ideas (as described by self among others on E-I) were never countered.
Completely f*d up. IMHO of course.
> Assuming that we intend to be spec-compliant, there are
> implications of this for transactions, the naming service, security,
> and of course we need to actually provide an IIOP proxy.
No we don't. IIOP support is "recommended" for interop, and the spec
states quite clearly that "well, it would be nice if you supported tx's
as well, but it isn't required".
> What's your take on all this?
Same as it has always been. No further comments :-) I've already said
everything I wanted to say, here and on E-I.
As for interop:
Any bean in any server from any vendor will be able to call a bean in
jBoss. It would be just yet another client. For security interop I would
suggest using the RMI security being introduced in JDK 1.4, and for tx
interop I would suggest using bean logic
(try/dostuff/catch->exception=setRollbackOnly). Not perfect, but
working.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
