incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Project Status
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:52:52 GMT
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 15:14, Lars K├╝hne wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > 1) The core orb and related stuff.
> > Basically, "core", "yoko-spec-corba", "rmi-spec", and "rmi-impl".
> > These are definitely the things Geronimo and Harmony are most
> > interested in.
> >
> > 2) The "Web Service" binding components.
> > The "api", "bindings", "tools", and "maven-plugin" modules.
> > These consist mostly of plugins to CXF, tooling around those, etc...
> > to allow the use of the CXF apis (JAX-WS) to communicate with CORBA
> > apps.
> >
> > The stuff in #2 actually has no dependency on the stuff in #1.   The
> > binding stuff should work with almost any ORB.   (Kind of evident by
> > the threads from Lukas getting it to work with Jacorg.)   However,
> > #2 is heavily dependent on CXF.   When CXF makes major changes, it
> > tends to break that stuff.    Also, that has caused issues with the
> > release schedules  as it kind of ties to the Yoko releases to CXF
> > releases.
> >
> >
> > So, my question is, would another TLP be interested in BOTH parts or
> > should we look into splitting them?
> I'd be OK with that, but does Harmony need an IDL compiler (idlj
> clone)? If so, the IDL preprocessor/parser in "tools" would have to
> live in both worlds somehow...

Hmm... good point.    Couple of possible responses:

1) With maven, it doesn't really matter as long as it's in it's own jar.   
No matter where it ends up, they could just pull in that one jar as a 
dependency.   (CXF is maven based and could easily break this out if 

2) If harmony needs JAX-WS for 1.6, I would strongly suggest using CXF 
anyway since, at this point, it's the only Apache Licensed, standalone 
certified, JAX-WS implementation and the CXF community is a bunch of 
really cool people to work with.     (caveat being I'm quite 
biased)    :-)   Thus, they'd get the jar anyway.

I guess the question is: does Geronimo need a idlj?   If not, does it 
make sense to even put it there at all? 

J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194

View raw message