On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Wojtek Janiszewski < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > according to previous decisions I'd like to take a closer look to sharing > code between CORBA and EJB bindings. Here's my view: > 1. Some code common for CORBA and EJB bindings should be extracted from > binding-corba-runtime module. Existing CORBA communication code should be > adjusted to handle RMI/IIOP. > 2. Some code from EJB binding should be moved to host modules (ie. > obtaining ORB, creating EJB reference from home reference, caching them). We > should also reuse existing CORBA hosts somehow. > 3. All the work will cause many changes in binding-ejb-runtime module. I'm > thinking about creating alternative binding.ejb module, and leaving > binding-ejb-runtime untouched. > Note that some of those are related to [1]. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Wojtek > > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2491 > > Simon Nash wrote: > >> Raymond Feng wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think it's good idea to share some code between CORBA and EJB bindings. >>> >>> Here is my view: >>> >>> 1) binding.corba provides the transport support for IIOP >>> 2) Most pouplar JEE/EJB containers support RMI/IIOP for EJBs. RMI/IIOP is >>> built on top of RMI and IIOP. >>> 3) For the reference side, we can use the RMI/IIOP protocol to access >>> EJBs as CORBA services (that's how we implement the EJB reference binding in >>> Tuscany today). >>> 4) For service side, we can potentially expose SCA components as CORBA >>> services over RMI/IIOP following the EJB patterns. This way, we can have a >>> poor-man's EJB container to support POJO as EJBs. >>> >>> I think this client side of this (3) makes sense. I'm less convinced >> about the service side (4). How much of EJB can we support in this way? >> I'd expect there would be limitations in areas like transactions, >> security and MDBs. With fully compliant open source EJB implementations >> like Geronimo and OpenEJB available, wouldn't most people who want to >> create an EJB use one of these containers? >> >> Simon >> >> Thanks, >>> Raymond >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Wojtek Janiszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:55 PM >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: The integration test for binding.corba is working now! >>> >>> Hi Tuscany Developers, >>>> >>>> I'd like to thank you (especially my mentor Raymond) for support and >>>> help which was given to me - I wouldn't made this far without you all! >>>> >>>> First development phase of GSoC is almost over so here's quick summary. >>>> >>>> Goal was to implement binding extension for CORBA. Most of features were >>>> implemented (there are still few features unresolved, which I hope to solve >>>> next week) - info and status of project can be found under [0]. Initially >>>> planned module binding-corba turned into modules binding-corba, >>>> binding-corba-runtime, host-corba, host-corba-jdk. There is also >>>> implementation of itest-corba, which was planned on 2nd development phase. >>>> :) >>>> >>>> After finishing CORBA binding next step will be implementation of >>>> interface-corba-idl module, which is second goal of "CORBA support for >>>> Apache Tuscany" Summer of Code project. I've enjoyed working on Tuscany so >>>> far and I'm looking forward to have more fun and challenge witch Tuscany. >>>> >>>> BTW, >>>> > 1) Merge the code from [1] to add the support of name mapping between >>>> > java methods and CORBA operations. >>>> I'd like to extract some common code to new module (corba-common or >>>> corba-util) that binding-ejb-runtime and binding-corba-runtime could use >>>> it. >>>> Is it acceptable? >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> Wojtek >>>> >>>> [0] - >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/CORBA+binding+features%2C+bugs%2C+issues >>>> >>>> Raymond Feng wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have applied the patches and now the integration test for >>>>> binding.corba is working and added to the main build! Thanks Wojek for his >>>>> great efforts to drive the GSoc project forward to this milestone. >>>>> Congratulations for his great success in the midterm :-)! >>>>> >>>>> There are a few things I suggest you do as the next steps: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Merge the code from [1] to add the support of name mapping between >>>>> java methods and CORBA operations. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Refine the model for binding.corba. >>>>> >>>>> We now have three parameters: host, port and name. We should support >>>>> the "corbaname:" URI too. For example, "corbaname:iiop:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> :2089/NameService#a/b/MyService". >>>>> >>>>> 3) Do we support the name in the format of JNDI name such as >>>>> "a/b/MyService"? >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>> > Raymond >>>> > >>>> > [1] >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/binding-ejb-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/binding/ejb/corba/Java2IDLUtil.java >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > Hi Wojtek by "Existing CORBA communication code should be adjusted to handle RMI/IIOP." do you mean that the CORBA binding should be able to handle both RMI/IIOP and straight IIOP? Simon
