Looks like G 2.2 came up again on your ActiveMQ question answered by
David Jencks on the Geronimo lists.
He's the release manager for 2.2 so I'll let him provide details.
-David
On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Joe Dente wrote:
David,
Thanks for the fast response. Unfortunately a Geronimo upgrade
requires
a significant time investment on our part and so tinkering around
with a
2.2 snapshot is most likely out of the question. If there is no way of
securing remote ejb communication in 2.1.4 then we will need to wait
for
the official release of Geronimo 2.2. For our planning purposes, can
you
provide any insight as to when Geronimo 2.2 will be released? It would
be extremely helpful if we had an estimate that is more precise than
the
"Q3 2009" listed on Geronimo's site.
Thanks again,
Joe
Hi,
Is it possible to perform secure EJB communication over SSL using
openejb-3.0.1? Our application communicates from client to server
using
remote EJB method calls and Geronimo-2.1.4, which in turn uses
Openejb-3.0.1. We need to achieve SSL encrypted communication for
our
EJBs for our client to server communication. I've been searching for
some time for an example of how to achieve this. In my searches I
came
across OPENEJB-785 (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-785)
which appears to be a blocking bug that was resolved in Openejb-3.1
and
thus did not make it into our version of Geronimo. This would lead
me to
believe that secure EJB communication is not possible for us with our
version of Openejb and Geronimo.
Right. The good news is that Geronimo 2.2 has been branched and is
frozen and should be released as soon as we can get final binaries
from our dependent projects (activemq, xbean, openejb, etc.). This
will contain OpenEJB 3.1.2 which does have the SSL feature. It also
has a reworked client/server protocol that is *way* faster in remote
communication.
How are people addressing the problem of encrypted EJB communication
in
Openejb-3.0.1?
Any chance you'd be willing to try a snapshot of 2.2? Would be happy
to build you one.
-David
