Spec changes

[hussainnm]

Update Related Documents Remove Support for Distributed Interoperability Remove Support for Jakarta XML RPC Web Service Endpoints

Fixes #110

[hussainnm]

A few more references to Jakarta XML RPC are present. I will be adding some more commits to this PR.

[dblevins]

@hussainnm Love all the contributions you've been doing. PR looks overall great. Some thoughts inline on the related documents section and potentially re-adding some of the deletions.

[hussainnm]

@dblevins I am not seeing any feedback on related documents.

[dblevins]

@hussainnm Totally optional addition. Before I noticed your PR, I was going to do PR to delete this interop reference.

Since you've done such a thorough job in this PR I thought you might want the honors.

[hussainnm]

XML-RPC is still referenced in the following sections of Optional Features document:

• Introduction
• Overview
• Exception Handling
• Client’s View of Exceptions
• Packaging Restrictions

Regarding removal of interoperability in Core Features document, it is mentioned in the following lines:

• Overall Goals The Enterprise Beans architecture will define the contracts that enable tools from multiple vendors to develop and deploy components that can interoperate at runtime. The Enterprise Beans architecture will provide interoperability between enterprise beans and Jakarta EE components as well as non-Java programming language applications. The Enterprise Beans architecture will be compatible with the CORBA protocols.
• Type Narrowing Note: Programs using the cast operator for narrowing the remote component interface and remote home interface are likely to fail if the container implementation uses RMI-IIOP as the underlying communication transport.
• Relationship with Jakarta Transactions JTS provides transaction interoperability using the standard IIOP protocol for transaction propagation between servers (This was previously discussed in the mailing list that this paragraph can be removed as it is not a requirement of Enterprise Beans specification)
• RMI-IIOP Interoperability in Enterprise Beans 2.x API

[dblevins]

@hussainnm I'll merge this PR as-is so we can deal with further updates, including re-adding some related documents, in subsequent PRs. This PR is pretty important, so best to get it in asap.

On references to RMI-IIOP that's a very nuanced discussion. Quite a lot of the RM-IIOP language is from the original EJB 1.1 specification which was protocol agnostic but did have a lot of explicit language saying "you cannot do things that would block RMI or IIOP being used as the protocol." Generally, it used the word "compatible" or "compliant" in those situations. Later in EJB 2.0 when CORBA was explicitly required, much of that language was upgraded to "interoperable" while new language and chapters were also added.

Effectively, what we need to do is roll back the RMI-IIOP requirements to EJB 1.1 level. Your PR gets us 90% of the way there, so best to get it in. That last 10% is likely going to take some lengthy discussion.