On 22 Mar 00, at 10:24, Robert Isepin wrote:
> I have the some comments to make about this very
> distrubing thread.
>
>
> 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.
No, the concern is that it will be made mandatory in a future
version of the spec. Take a look at the specification, section 13.1:
"Note: The EJB 1.1 specification does not require Container
vendors to use RMI-IIOP. A later release of the J2EE platform is
likely to require a J2EE platform implementor to implement the RMI-
IIOP protocol for EJB interoperability in heterogeneous server
environments."
You may also want to reference section 4.4, standard mapping to
CORBA protocols:
"To help interoperability for EJB environments that include systems
from multiple vendors, we define a standard mapping of the
Enterprise JavaBeans client-view contract to the CORBA protocols.
The use of the EJB to CORBA mapping by the EJB Server is not a
requirement for EJB 1.1 compliance. A later release of the J2EE
platform is likely to require that the J2EE platform vendor
implement the EJB to CORBA mapping."
-Dan
>
> I hope I have brought new light to this discussion and
> woke up some people about what this is all about. I
> await the hate mail.
>
>
> Robert.
>
===========================================================================
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".
