> I'm not following you. Your second sentence above says that choosing
> IIOP as wire-protocol is the way to do server interop. Your third
> sentence says that using an API for extracting this info would be good
> (as I have been proposing since the beginning). And your fourth sentence
> says that, hey, SOAP supports this, cool. But number 4 and number 2 are
> direct contradictions. What is your standpoint: 1 or several
> wire-protocols?
I suggest you get familiar with the OTS specs first. It's no that big of
a spec.
In IIOP propagation context is passed over the wire. The propagation is
directed to the TM through an API between the ORB and the TM. That API
is well defined in the JTS library (in fact, the only non-OMG interface
in JTS).
My recommendation is that RMI adopt a similar model for propagation over
the wire protocol, and use a similiar (to an existing) API to integrate
the ORB with the TM.
Unlike your recommendation, this integration does not occur at any smart
stub, it occurs at the ORB level.
>
> > With regards to RMI, I would like RMI to include context propagation in
> > a similar manner, so RMI becomes a preferred wire-protocol for RMI-RMI,
> > IIOP the preferred wire-protocol for IIOP-IIOP, and anything else you
> > want to use works pretty much the same.
>
> Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is "RMI-RMI" and
> what is "IIOP-IIOP"? I have never seen this use of these terms before.
RMI to RMI, IIOP to IIOP. Next time I'll try not to use these confusing
hyphens.
I am very familiar (at the source code level) with what your are
proposing, I just don't see a justification for basing a specification
on a particular implementation, even if we have a majority of EJB
servers that do so.
<implementation-details-came-here/>
> You're doing the same mistake as Inprise: not seeing the forest for all
> the trees. There's no need for a wire-protocol. You only need an API to
> get the information.
I don't think so. I simply like to employ generic patterns, and if I can
have RMI, IIOP and SOAP all working the same way, that would get a buy
in.
If there is a particular way that some servers (including ours) work
better with RMI that can utilize API instead of wire protocol, I do not
see any justification to do that way.
I do not know what Inprise is using, but we two share the same
architecture, and still I side with Inprise on that.
arkin
>
> /Rickard, we're getting there :-)
>
> --
> 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".
===========================================================================
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".
