[Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

Hello all: Last week I asked about removing activation from River, both the 2.2 and 3.0 branches. There didn’t seem to be a lot of anti-removal feeling, so I’d like to formally propose removing Activation. There are a couple of other things that we could possibly remove, like JRMP support (i.

[Discuss - Remove JRMP and IIOP support]

Hello all: I’d like to suggest removing JRMP support (i.e. pre-compiled proxy classes), and IIOP support (i.e. CORBA). JRMP is nicely replaced by JERI, which offers security and doesn’t require you to create compiled proxy classes by running rmic. JRMP support was originally included in the J

Re: [Discuss - Remove JRMP and IIOP support]

Greg, Apologies for being silent. Very busy over here. I am fine with this. +1 Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazegraph™

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

I was trying to remember precisely what is in "activation". I found this [1]. From [1]: "Distributed object systems are designed to support long-lived persistent objects. Given that these systems will be made up of many thousands (perhaps millions) of such objects, it would be unreasonable for ob

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Bryan Thompson wrote: > > I was trying to remember precisely what is in "activation". I found this > [1]. From [1]: > > "Distributed object systems are designed to support long-lived persistent > objects. Given that these systems will be made up of many thousands

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

Sounds just like the overhead of object relational mappers. Fine for one object. Death if you are trying to chase object graphs On Nov 13, 2015 3:11 PM, "Greg Trasuk" wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Bryan Thompson wrote: > > > > I was trying to remember precisely what is in "activa

Re: [Discuss - Remove JRMP and IIOP support]

i have done some investigation into implementing dynamic iiop stub generation.   glassfish does this. I'd like to retain iiop. We could certainly remove JRMP, but it's worth remembering that MarshalledObject still ties us to RMI, hence the need to set a property that allows downloaded code  ja

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

On long lived Objects: one of the design issues with the lookup service is the codebase annotation and  proxy are uploaded and stored.  unfortunately these can change over time, and codebase annotations can be lost. When i was investigating security, I looked into Reggie only storing a bootstra

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

I'd like to propose Removing it from River and placing it into a separate module or subproject. I'd like to see this done as part of the modular build effort. I think this should be part of River 3.1 Regards, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device.   Include original message Original message

Re: [Discuss - Remove JRMP and IIOP support]

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Peter wrote: > > i have done some investigation into implementing dynamic iiop stub > generation. glassfish does this. > > I'd like to retain iiop. I guess my question is why keep IIOP? Is there a use case that IIOP/CORBA covers that is not adequately address

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Peter wrote: > > On long lived Objects: > > one of the design issues with the lookup service is the codebase annotation > and > proxy are uploaded and stored. unfortunately these can change over time, and > codebase annotations can be lost. I’m confused here

Re: [Discuss - Remove JRMP and IIOP support]

Rivers IIOP implementation is very small and yet provides cross language capability.  i think the minor maintenance burden is outweighed by its benefits.  Corba is also an actively maintained standard. I think it should stay part of the platfom. JRMP should be deprecated, it provides less funct

Re: [Discuss - Remove JRMP and IIOP support]

+1 for keeping IIOP You never know what you’re going to need to integrate with. Right now for me it’s fortran (not that IIOP helps here, just an example), go figure Regards Dennis > On Nov 13, 2015, at 918PM, Peter wrote: > > Rivers IIOP implementation is very small and yet provides cross l

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

comment inline, sorry this phone doesn't quote your message Sent from my Samsung device.   Include original message Original message From: Greg Trasuk Sent: 14/11/2015 12:01:12 pm To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation? > On Nov 13, 2015, at 6:53 P