As Alan suggests, I think we should try to find the people that are
interested in participating in this project, and start working on
some adding stuff to the Wiki in relations to this. I think we need
to find a smaller forum where we can discuss the architecture of the
ORB itself. How do you normally launch new development efforts?
One discussion which would be worthy here on the general dev list is
how the ORB will be used. In the Trifork server we do all RMI via
IIOP using CORBA, and all local RMI invocations go via the CORBA
implementation. We do clustering, transactions and security via the
CORBA implementation, and so this puts another pressure on the
quality of the ORB. CORBA/IIOP, as backwards and complicated as it
may seem, still has many nice properties that facilitate low resource
consumption and good stability for networked applications.
If, in Geronimo, the ORB is "just" there to satisfy interoperability
needs, and not something that is crucial to the successful deployment
of Geronimo servers and used as the backbone of the EJB container for
instance; then this effort needs to be prioritized for such needs.
That means, for instance, that performance is not a critical issue
for the ORB. And we can definitively simplify many things if CORBA
performance is deemed non-important.
Let me know what you think. What should be the priorities here?
Kresten
On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I think that the intention here is pretty clear. How do you think
we should get started?
geir
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I pulled down the code an it looks like a lot of IIOP stuff is
there, what is missing for a full ORB? I'm not sure how I can
help with this without the full orb code. If we had that, I could
try integrating it into OpenEJB, but I am completely lost.
I had this same problem with the last IIOP donation, which was
also just IO code, and I hope to not repeat the experience.
What is your plan to get people involved?
-dain
On Oct 25, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
For those of you that missed it Kresten wrote in the JIRA entry:
----------------------------------------------------------------
As has been discussed previously, Trifork wants to donate a CORBA
implementation. This message is to get things really started in
context of Geronimo. Along with this message is a tar ball of the
initial contribution, and I want to take this opportunity to
describe what we are donating and how we would like to do this.
To set things straight, will not be donating a full CORBA
implementation up front. What we are proposing is to donate the
resources (read: developers) that it takes to do a full CORBA
implementation in context of Apache Geronimo. Our concern with
donating the full code is that we want to ensure that this is
built as a community effort, so when we're done we are not the
"single point of failure" for this to succeed as we go forward.
We would like to avoid being the only ones to know the code, so
that the CORBA implementation that comes out of this is something
that can have a life without us pushing it forward. This is
really the principal value that we see in contributing to this
project. We want to have a free and independent CORBA
implementation too, but we would like to avoid being stuck on it
as we go forward.
Having said all that, we do have a CORBA implementation; and in
our effort to bring this forward we will definitively use bits,
pieces or even large chunks of this to make the Apache Geronimo
CORBA implementation be complete and successful.
We know that there is eagerness in the Geronimo community to get
things started in building a CORBA solution, and so hopefully
this first contribution will be accepted as a starting point from
which we will build a world-class CORBA system.
What is in this package is the foundation of a new I/O subsystem
that I have previously talked about, and some of the code to hook
that up with the client-side of the CORBA stack. As such, thins
chunk of code is not in even self-contained nor complete. It's
just the state of the code in our lab right now, and we want to
move this into Geronimo space before we get too far along.
The mile stones that I imagine moving forward from here would be
something like this:
1. Client-side stream-based invocation.
2. Value semantics (object serialization)
3. Server-side stream-based invocation handling, including POA
implementation.
4. Dynamic stubs.
5. Local invocations.
There are a ton of sub-projects that I would love to see someone
starting on; some of which already have place holders or stubs in
the code that is part of the tar ball attached to this.
On Oct 25, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Kresten,
Can you take the main comment of the JIRA and post here on the
list? Having a threaded discussion in JIRA is awful.
Welcome, thanks for the contribution, and I look forward for
more discussion here.
geir
On Oct 25, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup (JIRA) wrote:
Use Trifork CORBA (freeorb
--------------------------
Key: GERONIMO-1111
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1111
Project: Geronimo
Type: New Feature
Components: CORBA
Versions: 1.1
Reporter: Kresten Krab Thorup
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the
administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
