Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sun, 6 Oct 2002 10:20:57 -0400:
>I didn't think the JDK actually provided an ORB. To my knowledge >everyone goes to a vendor for an ORB implementation. My lack of >actually using CORBA from Java is showing here. It did not provide one in the past. Starting with Sun J2SE 1.3, AFAIK, there was a simple ORB included. Their ORB improved a lot with J2SE 1.4, although the Sun implementation still does not support everything from the CORBA specification. See http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/api/org/omg/CORBA/doc-files/ compliance.html for details. Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Note that this does not give explicit permission to make and distribute > changes (like fixing bugs, adding javadoc, removing unneeded classes, > etc). What would be a reason for us to modify code whose shape is exactly prescribed by a standard? From what I understand, the reason for the OMG to distribute the sources is to ensure interoperability. The "readme.txt" in the OMG distro says: > Files which are not so marked [as dummy implementations to allow compilation > of the code] shall be provided by conformant products > "as is". Vendors may not add or subtract functionality from them > (though of course things such as comments, formal parameter names, etc. > which do not change functionality may be modified.) So, adding javadoc should be acceptable use, or am I misunderstanding this? Could we include the OMG code for now, and replace it in case we should ever need to deviate from the standard? -- Sascha brawer at acm.org, http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~brawer _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
