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