Hi,
I think it is a good idea to start with 2, then 3 and 1. Adding RMI/IIOP as
an alternative for binding.sca is very valuable.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Wojtek Janiszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:08 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Next steps to develop CORBA support for Tuscany
Hi all,
I fulfilled almost all TODOs initially planned for CORBA binding. There
are also 2 other functionalities left (support for CORBA arrays, support
for CORBA unions) which are rather simple to implement and can be done
meantime.
Recently I heard from you some propositions regarding general CORBA
development in Tuscany which are:
1. Sharing some code between CORBA and EJB bindings, ML archive link - [1]
2. Lightweight implementation of the SCA default binding over the corba
binding, JIRA link - [2].
There is also initially planned from GSoC proposal:
3. tuscany-interface-idl module implementation
I'm not sure about work consumptions for each proposition, but fulfilling
every proposal may be not possible before GSoC deadline - it's good time
to refine plan for second development phase. I'd like to hear from you
what in your opinion would be the most useful. My proposition is to start
implementing 2 - it could be occasion to use CORBA binding more
frequently, gain access to more tests and have possibility to know more
possible weaknesses of CORBA implementation avoiding end-user being
covered by bugs.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Wojtek
[1] - http://marc.info/?l=tuscany-dev&m=121553735213114&w=2
[2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2469
