geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Trifork CORBA
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:26:55 GMT
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:

> As Alan suggests, I think we should try to find the people that are  
> interested in participating in this project, and start working on  
> some adding stuff to the Wiki in relations to this.   I think we need  
> to find a smaller forum where we can discuss the architecture of the  
> ORB itself.  How do you normally launch new development efforts?

I agree with Geir that the project discussions should be done primarily 
on the dev list. 

>
> One discussion which would be worthy here on the general dev list is  
> how the ORB will be used.  In the Trifork server we do all RMI via  
> IIOP using CORBA, and all local RMI invocations go via the CORBA  
> implementation.  We do clustering, transactions and security via the  
> CORBA implementation, and so this puts another pressure on the  
> quality of the ORB.  CORBA/IIOP, as backwards and complicated as it  
> may seem, still has many nice properties that facilitate low resource  
> consumption and good stability for networked applications.
>
> If, in Geronimo, the ORB is "just" there to satisfy interoperability  
> needs, and not something that is crucial to the successful deployment  
> of Geronimo servers and used as the backbone of the EJB container for  
> instance; then this effort needs to be prioritized for such needs.   
> That means, for instance, that performance is not a critical issue  
> for the ORB.  And we can definitively simplify many things if CORBA  
> performance is deemed non-important.

The most critical need right now is to have a replacement to the Sun ORB 
that would allow portability to other JVM impelementations.  The lack of 
a full-function compliant ORB is the main factor locking Geronimo in to 
the Sun 1.4.2 JVM. 

I think the general view of the CORBA support is that of a "necessary 
evil".  It is required for J2EE certifcation, but is not generally seen 
as critical to most Geronimo deployments.  My personal view of the 
priorities is "get it working, get it portable".  Issues such as 
additional uses or higher peformance are things to consider after the 
primary requirements are fullfilled.


>
> Let me know what you think.  What should be the priorities here?
>
> Kresten
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I think that the intention here is pretty clear.  How do you think  
>> we should get started?
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I pulled down the code an it looks like a lot of IIOP stuff is  
>>> there, what is missing for a full ORB?  I'm not sure how I can  help 
>>> with this without the full orb code.  If we had that, I could  try 
>>> integrating it into OpenEJB, but I am completely lost.
>>>
>>> I had this same problem with the last IIOP donation, which was  also 
>>> just IO code, and I hope to not repeat the experience.
>>>
>>> What is your plan to get people involved?
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> For those of you that missed it Kresten wrote in the JIRA entry:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> As has been discussed previously, Trifork wants to donate a CORBA  
>>>> implementation. This message is to get things really started in  
>>>> context of Geronimo. Along with this message is a tar ball of the  
>>>> initial contribution, and I want to take this opportunity to  
>>>> describe what we are donating and how we would like to do this.
>>>>
>>>> To set things straight, will not be donating a full CORBA  
>>>> implementation up front. What we are proposing is to donate the  
>>>> resources (read: developers) that it takes to do a full CORBA  
>>>> implementation in context of Apache Geronimo. Our concern with  
>>>> donating the full code is that we want to ensure that this is  
>>>> built as a community effort, so when we're done we are not the  
>>>> "single point of failure" for this to succeed as we go forward.  We 
>>>> would like to avoid being the only ones to know the code, so  that 
>>>> the CORBA implementation that comes out of this is something  that 
>>>> can have a life without us pushing it forward. This is  really the 
>>>> principal value that we see in contributing to this  project. We 
>>>> want to have a free and independent CORBA  implementation too, but 
>>>> we would like to avoid being stuck on it  as we go forward.
>>>>
>>>> Having said all that, we do have a CORBA implementation; and in  
>>>> our effort to bring this forward we will definitively use bits,  
>>>> pieces or even large chunks of this to make the Apache Geronimo  
>>>> CORBA implementation be complete and successful.
>>>>
>>>> We know that there is eagerness in the Geronimo community to get  
>>>> things started in building a CORBA solution, and so hopefully  this 
>>>> first contribution will be accepted as a starting point from  which 
>>>> we will build a world-class CORBA system.
>>>>
>>>> What is in this package is the foundation of a new I/O subsystem  
>>>> that I have previously talked about, and some of the code to hook  
>>>> that up with the client-side of the CORBA stack. As such, thins  
>>>> chunk of code is not in even self-contained nor complete. It's  
>>>> just the state of the code in our lab right now, and we want to  
>>>> move this into Geronimo space before we get too far along.
>>>>
>>>> The mile stones that I imagine moving forward from here would be  
>>>> something like this:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Client-side stream-based invocation.
>>>> 2. Value semantics (object serialization)
>>>> 3. Server-side stream-based invocation handling, including POA  
>>>> implementation.
>>>> 4. Dynamic stubs.
>>>> 5. Local invocations.
>>>>
>>>> There are a ton of sub-projects that I would love to see someone  
>>>> starting on; some of which already have place holders or stubs in  
>>>> the code that is part of the tar ball attached to this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Kresten,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you take the main comment of the JIRA and post here on the  
>>>>> list?  Having a threaded discussion in JIRA is awful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome, thanks for the contribution, and I look forward for  more 
>>>>> discussion here.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup (JIRA) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Use Trifork CORBA (freeorb
>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Key: GERONIMO-1111
>>>>>>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1111
>>>>>>      Project: Geronimo
>>>>>>         Type: New Feature
>>>>>>   Components: CORBA
>>>>>>     Versions: 1.1
>>>>>>     Reporter: Kresten Krab Thorup
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the  
>>>>>> administrators:
>>>>>>    http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> For more information on JIRA, see:
>>>>>>    http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>>>>> geirm@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message