Rickard Oberg wrote:
> The IIOP support in EJB 2.0 does not mandate distributed tx's. And having
> talked in person to da man last week (Mark Hapner) I can tell you that not
> even he sees that as a big priority: application integration is going to
> happen through XML/HTTP, not IIOP. And I and Marc agree with that
> conclusion.
Sorry, I do not agree.
While XML/HTTP will probably be used heavily for the frontend of systems,
IIOP is already a standard for communication between servers. Almost all
EJB vendors support it today. With XML your data is substantially larger
in size and this means higher transfer latency. Thus, I find it very
unlikely that vendors will throw away IIOP for XML/HTTP.
> > I guess that the bottom line is that I think that IIOP-support is more
> > important than support for distributed TX and that distributed TX could
> > (should) be implemented over IIOP/CORBA OTS:-)
>
> Why is IIOP-support important? Do you have C or COBOL clients that you want
> to communicate with jBoss?
IIOP is the defacto standard for interoperability between EJB
servers, even if jBoss does not support it.
With IIOP you can create clients and servers in C, C++, Java, COBOL
and Smalltalk. This means that if you find out that some service
is too slow you can rewrite it in C++ without having to update your
clients.
And there is a lot of IIOP-based software around. For example,
if we did not care about RMI, we could use an IIOP-based OTS
implementation written in C++.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
