Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ejb-dev] Ejb Over http/Http2 (Re: New release for Jakarta EE 12?)
We are designing the protocol so that it is easily integrated with cloud environments. I was thinking that standardizing this in specification may be considered as a message to the community that EJBs are cloud-ready, and, as Angelo mentioned, they can rely on EJBs robust and proven capabilities (f.e. distributed transactions) in more modern environments. Interoperability may be another benefit. OTOH, I agree with the point that it may require a lot of work to create a standard from implementations present in various distributions and I'm also thinking that the timing may be wrong (that is maybe it would be better to standardize if those protocols happen to gain wider adoption instead of when anticipating it).

Regards,
Tomek

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 2:59 AM David Blevins via ejb-dev <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Despite the fact many people shut it down, it'd be great to know what you were thinking.  I think it's important people feel welcome to express unpopular opinions.

Was the goal a standard protocol so one client could talk to any server (what we've typcially called "interop").  Or was the goal simply to ensure EJB users could be guaranteed that calling an EJB over HTTP is supported by the server (if each server did this in their own way, that'd be fine as long as it was supported).  Or was it both?

If it was just ensuring people could call EJBs over some form of HTTP, we also support that in TomEE/OpenEJB and I'd be surprised if we were both the only ones.


-David

On Apr 15, 2025, at 10:36 AM, David Blevins via ejb-dev <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 10, 2025, at 9:56 AM, Angelo Rubini via ejb-dev <ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

why not think about standardizing this implementation present in wildfly?and like this:

Hi Angelo and Tomasz,

We would need to focus on the goal vs the proposed solution.  If the goal is protocol interoperability between different server implementations we would need to all agree that this goal is worth it.  From an EJB spec perspective we just removed EJB protocol interoperability gradually between Jakarta EE 9.1 and 10, so I don't imagine there is much support.

If we did agree that we do want to all invest in EJB interoperability, the conversation would be open for anyone to propose a protocol and could even involve creating a protocol using everyone's input.  All of us have different protocols, most of which we also made and fit our servers intimately.  OpenEJB has EJBd which can layer over HTTP.  Weblogic has T3.  OpenLiberty uses CORBA (already a standard).  There have been other's to suggest we should all support Google's Protocol Buffers.

Would the Wildfly team still be willing to pursue interoperability if it meant not using your existing protocol and implementing a protocol decided by the spec group?  If the goal is not interoperability, can you clarify the intent?


-David

_______________________________________________
ejb-dev mailing list
ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ejb-dev

_______________________________________________
ejb-dev mailing list
ejb-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ejb-dev


--
Regards,
Tomek

Back to the top