Robert Isepin wrote:
> 2. The dicussion of RMI-IIOP support has gone off the
> track somewhat. The first post has not been answered.
> In fact it has been ignored by people who claimed that
> others are doing the same. Does the current J2EE/EJB
> 1.1 specification not state that RMI-IIOP is
> mandatory.
Sorry but the specs do NOT require the use of RMI over IIOP. This is a point
of confusion for most people. The EJB 1.1 and J2EE specs do not require that
the IIOP wire protocol be used. The specs only require that the EJB client APIs
adhere to RMI-IIOP semantics. Which means that only legal RMI-IIOP value and
reference types can be used in remote and home interfaces. In addition it
requires that the javax.rmi.PortableRemoteObject.narrow( ) method must be
used. Except for the narrow( ) method, the other restrictions will rarely be
noticed by the average developer since most of the restrictions imposed on
types by RMI-IIOP are already required by Java RMI-JRMP.
What this means is that your remote and home interfaces have to look and behave
like they are using RMI-IIOP but the vendor can use any wire protocol they
want. Apparently, this was done to make it simpler for customers and vendors to
transition to RMI-IIOP when it becomes required. Right or wrong that how it
works.
Richard
--
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans
Published by O'Reilly & Associates
http://www.EjbNow.com
EJB FAQ
http://www.jguru.com/faq/EJB
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
