> 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.
(since I'm replying I think you can guess my next statement ;-)
You're wrong. If different servers from different vendors using
different protocols are to be interoperable (i.e. being able to properly
transfer implicit context between servers), it would require an API
which the stubs could use to extract this implicit context information
from. Defining this API is my proposal, and BEA's, on how to support
server interop. in EJB.
Also, when you say ".. so it only works with RMI" you are technically
making a rather confusing statement. You are probably referring to "RMI
using JRMP as wire protocol". RMI != RMI/JRMP. RMI is an interface, of
which RMI/IIOP, RMI/JRMP, RMI/SOAP, RMI/T3 are different
implementations. Specification and implementation. Just as everything
else in this wonderful world of Java. EJB relies on RMI (see EJB1.1
specification, ch 13 "Support for distribution"). This does not say that
it relies on RMI/JRMP.
However, what you and Inprise et al, are saying is that we must restrict
it to only use RMI/IIOP as wire-protocol in order to support server
interoperability. What I am saying is that this is not a good solution.
My previous posts have shown a better alternative, and also highlighted
by example why choosing a wire-protocol would be a bad idea. IMHO, I
have provided very strong arguments for my case. I have yet to see any
arguments on why choosing a wire-protocol is a better solution. I have
seen some attempts at showing why IIOP is good. Which is irrelevant. It
is, currently, not the issue.
I hereby invite you to provide arguments against an API-solution, and
for a wire-protocol solution.
/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".
