Arkin wrote:
> Your argument supports, in my opinion, why IIOP should not be the only
> protocol. However, your argument assumes an environment that is very
> favorable to RMI, not very favorable to IIOP: who gets to publish the
> smart stubs in a distributed system? why would company A allow stubs
> coming from company B's server?
Why should it not? It could easily use the Java Security API if you want
to constrain what the stubs can perform (if it's security you're worried
about).
> how does that play with SOAP and similar
> interoperability standards that do not use stubs?
RMI/SOAP is being developed right now I hear, which would give us
RMI-stubs using SOAP as wire protocol.
> The only issue I see is the total lack of specification for the security
> context, and that one is defined to work exteremly well with RMI, I do
> not see how it will buy us an IIOP, SOAP, IPSec or other form of
> interoperability. I understand that a lot of effort went into the JAAS
> design to assure such flexibility.
True, although this is more of a problem of how to propagate data than
anything else. If each wire-protocol wants a particular format of this
data, then use that.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dreambean.com
Question reality
===========================================================================
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".
