Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: >> Kevan Miller wrote: <snip> >>> Keeping Yoko as a standalone component is an easy decision, IMO. Hard >>> to see it any other way... >> >> Actually, I have a whole laundry list of things that could be done to >> Yoko to make it work better in the Geronimo environment that could >> mess it's ability to function as a standalone server if not done >> "correctly". For example, it would be nice if Yoko could hook into >> the Geronimo thread pooling APIs. It's easier to ensure things like >> this are done in the correct fashion if the constraint of needing to >> remain standalone is stated right up front. > > You make a good point. We should be very explicit about the requirement > that Yoko be standalone.
Yep, Corba is a significant part of the Java SE spec too and Harmony has been taking Yoko drops as part of our implementation. IMHO it doesn't make sense for us to fork the code and maintain it independently of Geronimo. Alexey (one of the proposed new committers) is on the Harmony PMC so can help keep things honest. Regards, Tim
