[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I would have dearly loved to see a specification from Sun (or
> > the OMG) of an
> > alternate Java to IDL mapping that doesn't require the use of
> > valuetypes. In
> [...]
>
> Why do you want this to do ? You say "there does not exist
> a COBOL mapping for valuetypes" so you can not use RMI/IIOP
> on the mainframe.
> That's right, but the conclusion is wrong.
>
> Fact 1: Valuetypes are CORBA 2.3 standard.
Agreed.
> Fact 2: RMI/IIOP requires valuetypes (current spec)
Agreed.
> Fact 3: The only language mappings supporting valuetypes today
> are Java and C++ (correct me if I am wrong here)
Agreed.
> Fact 4: Because of Fact 2 and 3 you need wrappers if
> you want access to EJBs from a language different then C++ or Java.
Agreed. Actually even if you are using C++ you have a lot of work on
your hands here. Just try using the RMI/IIOP mapping and see how much
complex C++ code you have to write to deal with a Java 2 collection
returned by an entity bean finder method! Do any vendors provide such
code with their C++ CORBA 2.3 ORBs? Not that I have seen. So every
customer has to write it for themselves, or create wrappers even when
using C++. Check out the white papers on the Inprise web site - they
tell you how to write wrappers to access EJBs in their own EJB server
when using their C++ CORBA 2.3 ORB that supports OBV!
You assume that just because an OBV mapping exists for C++ that
somehow EJB->C++ interoperability comes for free. It does not.
If someone would be kind enough to write a C++ implementation of the
valuetypes for Java 2 collections and make it open source, that would
do the EJB/CORBA community a great service at least in respect of
EJB->C++ interoperability. It would be great for a university research
project. Until such time, every single customer trying to achieve
EJB->C++ interoperability using the RMI/IIOP mapping has to reinvent
the wheel! This is not far off being totally ridiculous!
> So the conclusion for the problem should be:
> Extend the language mappings that currently lack valuetype
> support to support valuetypes.
> Then you can implement a COBOL ORB with valuetype support for your
> mainframe.
And when will that be ready? 2 or 3 years from now perhaps. Our customers
demand and expect interoperability from third party CORBA 2.0 ORBs with
EJB components TODAY, not years from now.
> What you propose is:
> - Restrict yourself to CORBA 2.0.
> - Redefine the RMI/IIOP spec to be based on 2.0 features.
No, I am suggesting defining an alternative second mapping, not replacing
the existing mapping which is obviously useful for Java to Java
interoperability.
> If you follow this way you block all innovations from/to CORBA.
Not at all. Please understand that I am suggesting an additional
mapping that is more suitable for interoperability across language
boundaries. Let the customers choose the mapping that best serves
their interoperability requirements!
Thanks for responding.
________________________________________________________________________________
Evan Ireland Sybase EAServer Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wellington, New Zealand +64 4 934-5856
===========================================================================
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".
