incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Next Steps
Date Sun, 09 Sep 2007 01:44:51 GMT

On Saturday 08 September 2007, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> It sounds like the most responses favored Geronimo for the ORB code
> and the bindings bits to CXF.
>
> We can do this in successive stages but at a minimum I think we need
> to outline the split of the code to the projects.  Dan, would you be
> willing to outline the proposal for the split so a proposal can be
> drafted for consideration to the PMCs?

I'd love to help out, but I'm on vacation until Thursday with very spotty 
net access.   Also, not being a Yoko committer, I'm not 100% familiar 
with the code.   Look at the top level dirs, I think it would be:


Core ORB stuff:
core
rmi-impl
rmi-spec
yoko-spec-corba   (this possibly should go to Geronimo specs)
distribution/src/main/samples/orb


Binding stuff:
api
bindings
tools
maven-plugin
distribution/src/main/samples/ws

Could the Yoko experts confirm the above?   Could the Yoko experts also 
figure out which commiters have been involved in which areas?  My 
connection is too flakey to run a bunch of svn logs.   Keeps timing 
out.   :-(

From a CXF side, if the CXF PPMC approves, it would most like pull the 
stuff into a branch for refactoring, maybe into the sandbox, before 
sending to trunk.   The tools would require a bit of work to fit into 
the CXF tool structure.   The binding stuff looks a bit cleaner.   We'd 
also obviously need to double check that the binding stuff works with 
the JDK ORB.  (it supposedly does, in theory, I think.)   However, all 
that is stuff to worry about after the votes and if the votes pass.   I 
imagine there would be similar procedures that would need to be done for 
Geronimo/Harmony/OpenEJB.



> I'll take a whack at the porposal which will include:
>
> 1. Background for the move
> 2. Code to be moved
> 3. Committers that would come with the code base.
>
> Then ask the PMCs for their response.
>
> I can start a separate vote on which direction as a starting point
> which sounds like:
>
> Geronimo / CXF
> OpenEJB / CXF
> Harmony / CXF
>
> Although, based on the feedback that Geronimo / CXF seems to be the
> predominant choice.  If folks feel like we should formalize this for
> a vote respond on this thread.

One thing I'd also like to point out about the Geronimo/CXF proposal that 
I personally think is an advantage over Harmony:  both projects use 
Maven 2 and do deploy snapshots and stuff on a fairly regular basis.   
This makes it MUCH easier (IMO) for other projects to take a dependency 
on those projects and pull those artifacts in.   Thus, if Harmony or 
some other project needs an ORB, they can grab it easily.   If they need 
some parts of the IDL tooling from CXF (for example, if someone wants to 
start writing an idlj), they could grab it.   etc....


-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Mime
View raw message