RMI call from EJB

Discussions

EJB programming & troubleshooting: RMI call from EJB

  1. RMI call from EJB (3 messages)

    Hi ,

    I am using WLS6.0 and a WorkFlow Product called FileNET.
    FileNET provoides some Java API to communicate with the server . This APIs are RMI based and requires Jdk is 1.1.x.

    Now if i make an RMI call to FileNET server , from an EJB
    will that create any problem ?

    IS there any way to handle Transaction using JTA over RMI .

    Thanks in advance

    Ashim Chakraborty


    Threaded Messages (3)

  2. RMI call from EJB[ Go to top ]

    1. There are no problems with calling an RMI service from within an EJB. In fact, to work around various EJB limitations (no JNI, no threading, etc.) it is common practice to use RMI from within EJB's.

    2. No, RMI does not support transactions.

    3. FileNet? Hope your experience is better than mine has been in the past.

    Chuck McCorvey
  3. RMI call from EJB[ Go to top ]

    Hi Chuck,

    Thanks for your reply .

    I know that common practice to call RMI from EJB . The only thing that bothers me is FileNET provided APIs ( rmi client)
    requires jdk 1.1.x . But WLS 6.0 requirs jdk1.3

    God knows these FileNet apis uses some deprecated / unsupported api in respect to jdk1.3

    More over i think no bodies experience with FileNET may be cool .

    It will be my pleasure , if you can share your fileNet Exp with me....
    I am using IDMIs 3.5.0 , Visual workFlow 3.0.3 and VW web Service 3.02

    Waiting for your reply


    Ashim Chakraborty



  4. RMI call from EJB[ Go to top ]

    The communication between JDK 1.3.x-based EJB server and a JDK 1.1.x (at least 1.1.6 or later) should not be a problem. This assumes several things:

    1. If the RMI interfaces are wrapped in some kind of FileNet-supplied client code, then you need to worry about that code's support for JDK 1.3. If not, then the EJB side should be fine.

    2. Usage of RMI, including the marshalling/serialization of requests and responses are compatible. This should be the case.


    As for experience with FileNet, all I can add is that when I used their older workflow support including early versions of VisualWorkflow (1996 - 1997), I had nothing but problems. Reliability, and performance was poor. Also, the feature set was very limited and we ended up extracting it and implementing our own, very simple solution. Others I have spoken with since don't seem any more happy with their product than I.

    Chuck