geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <>
Subject Re: Trifork CORBA
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:45:25 GMT
Lars K├╝hne wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> I want to extend an invitation out to all the OpenORB developers who 
>> might be interested in helping out.  Lots of great work out here!
> I'm one of them, but I don't use Geronimo and I haven't looked at G's 
> architecture.
> Some of these points have already been made in this thread:
>   1. The code really should be in cvs/svn so it's easy to send in patches.
>   2. The code needs to be buildable, and preferably have tests, so it's
>      easy to try out changes.
>   3. A high level description of the core code and the module structure
>      above core would be great. It seems that the directory layout is
>      designed to host other modules as well. What would these other
>      modules be? Top level components like an IDL compiler and a
>      NamingService implemenation? That would be cool, because I'm
>      currently working on a Apache licensed IDL compiler.
> Once #1 is in place, I think I can start working on #2, although I can't 
> promise more than maybe a few hours per week, and the ORB kernel is not 
> my primary area of expertise within OpenORB.
> There certainly is demand for a complete Apache licensed ORB 
> implementation outside Geronimo. Personally I would need that to replace 
> OpenORB in our code (we use plain CORBA, without a container), but other 
> projects like Apache Harmony would benfit as well. This means that there 
> should be no dependency from the ORB core to Geronimo.
> Is support for Java 1.4 a requirement in Geronimo, and if yes then for 
> how long? In Java 5 many infrastructure classes like j.u.concurrent and 
> JMX are available without introducing any external dependencies, and 
> support for SSL seems to be much better (no personal experience). Would 
> it be OK for the ORB to require Java 5?

I think we should be supporting 1.4.2 (and 1.5) for a while, as many 
large enterprise systems are slow (like a year or two behind) to move to 
recent (1.5) versions of Java, for many reasons.

Could relying upon external dependencies be a positive.. e.g. a more 
supportable/patchable system, rather than having to wait for a fix in a 
later JDK release?

Eventually we should drop support for 1.4.2, but hopefully not for a while.

How do others feel about this?


> Last but not least I'd like to thank Trifork for starting this 
> initiative and donating their code.
> Regards,
> Lars

View raw message