Simon Laws wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Wojtek Janiszewski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:55 PM
To: <[email protected] <mailto:[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
Yes, this is what I meant, but now I'm in doubt if rewriting it really
makes sense - we already have this code in binding.ejb. Maybe we should
only stick to integration with host-corba-*?
Thanks,
Wojtek
