I don't see how IIOP prevents one from using SOAP, nor do I see how
enabling two different severs from two different vendors to talk IIOP
(or IIOP over HTTP) prevent them from also talking SOAP, nor do I see
how it prevents all of these from also doing RMI.
I agree that RMI works better, and should definitely be supported, I
just don't see why RMI is the only way to do things, and why we have to
structure EJB so it only works with RMI.
Since RMI does not, at the moment, enable interoperability, supporting
IIOP for that makes a lot of sense. Corret me if I'm wrong.
arkin
"Rickard �berg" wrote:
>
> On multi-protocol vs single-protocol (i.e. RMI/IIOP)
>
> Consider this.
>
> Let's say we have a B2B scenario, where one company (A) wants to access
> a EJB-cluster of another company (B). Each company has a firewall. The
> firewalls only allows traffic on port 80. In order for A to be able to
> talk to B it must use a protocol that uses HTTP-tunneling. Let's say
> SOAP. By doing this A can access B, even though there are a number of
> firewalls in between. B, however, wants to access its EJB-cluster
> internally through some cool intranet web-application. They don't want
> to use SOAP, because it is not very fast. So, instead they want to use
> the protocol MyProt, which their cluster supports. MyProt is a very
> optimized protocol, and especially suited for cool intranet webapps.
>
> Result:
> A can access B's EJB-cluster through SOAP. B can access their own
> cluster through MyProt. Both are happy.
>
> If instead we had used RMI/IIOP only, the single-protocol alternative,
> we're already in trouble as the firewalls don't allow it. A is not
> happy. B, who accesses their own functionality through a web-app., can
> use RMI/IIOP, but their application passes a lot of XML-trees back and
> forth between the web-app and the EJB-server. IIOP doesn't handle that
> particularly well, so the result is a sluggish webapp. B is not happy.
>
> Result:
> Neither A nor B are happy with the solution. "EJB sucks" they think.
>
> Summary:
> Multi-protocol: A and B are happy.
> Single-protocol: A and B are unhappy.
>
> See. That was easy :-)
>
> This example was perhaps a bit exagerated, but definitely not unlikely.
> I wouldn't be surprised if many apps use this kind of setup in the (very
> near!) future. And if we then are restricted to one wire protocol, that
> doesn't work in many cases, that's bad for EJB. Which is bad for You.
>
> Any counter-arguments? I'm not an IIOP-expert (although I currently have
> the book "IIOP Complete" on my desk :-), so if you want to provide a
> solution to the above scenario using IIOP, please do.
>
> regards,
> 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".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assaf Arkin www.exoffice.com
CTO, Exoffice Technologies, Inc. www.exolab.org
===========================================================================
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".
