Re: Next Steps for Project Yoko : A Proposal

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

Axis2 also has CORBA bindings using Yoko. I wonder whether there's a way 
to look at unifying that work to avoid whatever duplication possible. 
Axis2 has a pretty complete binding and we're working on client bindings 
as well (currently the work is mostly to Web service enable a CORBA object).


DanK- are you the one who's working on that part in CXF? Can you point us 
to the binding code?


The Axis2 work is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis2/trunk/java/modules/corba/

Sanjiva.

Jim Jagielski wrote:


On Nov 15, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:



I believe the easiest way to proceed is to draft a proposal that we 
will send to both Apache Geronimo and Apache CXF.  Apache CXF is still 
in incubation so I'm not sure if there are any specific issues with 
doing this while they are incubating.  I'm copying the Incubator PMC 
for their input on this proposal to make sure we have all the i's 
dotted and t's crossed.




...



The remainder of the modules in Yoko are part of the webservices 
support and are independent of the underlying ORB implementation.


api -- interface classes used for the web services support.
bindings -- code to implement the CORBA-Web services bindings.
tools -- tools for generation WSDL and IDL for the bindings
maven-plugin -- some maven plugins that can use the tools for 
generating binding-related build artifacts.  None of the maven-plugin 
code is used by the ORB.


There is also a distribution directory with some sample applications.  
One set of samples demonstrates using the core ORB, the other set is 
for WebServices.  We recommend that the distribution directory should 
move to Apache CXF as the webservices examples use the orb samples to 
bind them as web services.  Since Apache Geronimo's only use of CORBA 
is for exporting EJBs, these samples are not particularly valuable for 
Geronimo.


The Yoko community did not have any committers that expressed an 
interest in continuing work on these bindings.  As such, only the code 
would be moving to apache CXF.





Dan Kulp and I talked a bit yesterday (at least, I *think* it
was yesterday)... with my CXF Mentor hat on, I think this makes a lot
of sense, not only for the CXF code and functional aspects, but also
as a potential mechanism to bring in additional developers for the
podling.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder  Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman  CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/

Re: Next Steps for Project Yoko : A Proposal

[Matt Hogstrom]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Alexey Petrenko wrote:


The proposal look ok for me. I only suggest to explicitly mention that
the modules used by Harmony should be available for download
separately from Geronimo itself.

Thanks for moving this task!

SY, Alexey



I'll add that as I think its an important point and readily recognized.

Re: Next Steps for Project Yoko : A Proposal

[Alan D. Cabrera]

On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Lars Kühne wrote:


Hi Matt,

thanks for driving things forward.

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
For now, please review this proposal and post your comments and  
input.

[...]

The proposed division is:

yoko-spec-corba - this is the org.omg interface classes.
rmi-spec - this is the javax.rmi spec implementation
core - This is the actual ORB implementation.
rmi-impl - This is the implementation of the RMIIIOP support.

These modules are also used by Harmony.



I think the module division is correct, but I wonder if now is the  
right time for core to try leaving the incubator.


Probably not a lot has changed since last February [1], when we  
found out that nobody here really has a high level overview over  
the complete ORB code (please speak up if I misinterpreted that  
thread). Can we really support all of the core code? Currently it  
seems we're not even ready to review patches from the user  
community, like the one in YOKO-413.


My high level development docs questions from the  
Documentation / Graduation thread [2] are also still unanswered,  
and they probably can only be answered by the original authors of  
the code. Most of those questions are being tracked in JIRA [3].  
Note that Alan set their Fix Version to Incubation when he  
created those issues, so I guess he agrees that high level  
development docs are relevant for leaving the incubator.


Lars, we are splitting the project to be housed as sub-projects of  
Geronimo and CXF.  We are not graduating per se.


However, your concerns are still valid and will become the concerns  
of the Geronimo and CXF PMCs.



Regards,
Alan

Re: Next Steps for Project Yoko : A Proposal

[Lars Kühne]

Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Lars, we are splitting the project to be housed as sub-projects of 
Geronimo and CXF.  We are not graduating per se.


I'm confused. Can an incubating project run outside the control of the 
incubator PMC?


However, your concerns are still valid and will become the concerns of 
the Geronimo and CXF PMCs.


Good to hear that.

Lars