Hiram,
I browsed through the ActiveIO code, and it is pretty close to what I
am looking for for the basic IO stuff. Very nice!
Here's a couple of things that come off my mind...
- the NIOAsyncChannel class should use the selector mechanism to wait
for the ability to write data, rather
Hi Kresten,
On Jul 4, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
== first project ==
Right now the Trifork ORB is using NIO for the server-side of IIOP,
but classic IO for the client side. The NIO part is great
because it lets us run all corba handling in a single selector
thread
Hiram,
Could you please make sure that the project gets worked on here at
Apache? Am a bit concerned about code getting forked out and then
becoming geronimo becoming a dependency on an external project. If
activeio folks want to come here and join forces with trifork folks,
that would be ideal
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 7/7/2005 9:16 AM:
Hiram,
Could you please make sure that the project gets worked on here at
Apache? Am a bit concerned about code getting forked out and then
becoming geronimo becoming a dependency on an external project. If
activeio folks want to come here and join
Jeff Genender wrote, On 7/4/2005 10:05 AM:
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
As for where it should be placed ASF-wise, I am thinking that it
would be best to place it as part of Geronimo initially, because it
is a good thing to have a concrete project [the appserver] to drive
the
That's a possibility. I would not mind bringing the project into
apache if it will help grow the community.
But I think the first step is to see if activeio is the kind of think
that new Trifork orb is interested in.
Regards,
Hiram
On Jul 7, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Alan,
Yes that is why I threw that out there...I was interested in feedback
from what the community thinks.
Thanks for responding.
Jeff
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote, On 7/4/2005 10:05 AM:
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
As for where it should be placed ASF-wise, I am thinking
yep. +1
On 7/7/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:17 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I dunno, if it's going to take 4 months for TriFork to finish
releasing the code, I'm all in favor of picking a home ASAP so it
doesn't
slip further.
I think
I'm sorry Jeff. It is a good idea to solicit ideas here.
What I was thinking was to start it off inside Geronimo. As it's
popularity grew, we could transition it to a sub-project; I don't think
sub-projects are evil. When it becomes a wildly popular project, we can
spin it out as a TLP.
Thanks for the pointer, Hiram. I will definitively make sure to look
into that project.
Kresten
On Jul 7, 2005, at 6:00 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Kresten,
On Jul 4, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
== first project ==
Right now the Trifork ORB is using NIO for the
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:16:19PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hiram,
Could you please make sure that the project gets worked on here at
Apache? Am a bit concerned about code getting forked out and then
becoming geronimo becoming a dependency on an external project.
There's the f word
On Jul 4, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
Geir,
Thanks for your questions, as I was trying to answer the response
ended up becoming rather lengthy...
First off, I don't think that it makes too much sense to just toss
a bunch of code over the fence; that would be a
Jeff Genender wrote:
Relative to the statement above, is there a reason you want the ORB
directly in the Geronimo project? I can see this orb being an important
project in its own right and can have many uses beyond Geronimo. If not
as its own ASF project, dare I say the possibility of a
On Jul 5, 2005, at 4:50 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Relative to the statement above, is there a reason you want the
ORB directly in the Geronimo project? I can see this orb being an
important project in its own right and can have many uses beyond
Geronimo. If not
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Is the OpenORB project really alive and kicking?
I wish I had found it earlier - it seems they are not necessarily
kicking yet still alive. The last release was on 7/29/04 and the dev@ ml
seems to be crawling down.
geir
Jacek
On 7/5/2005 4:19 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 4:50 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Relative to the statement above, is there a reason you want the
ORB directly in the Geronimo project? I can see this orb being an
important
+1 Awesome! that's sounds excellent.
On 7/4/05, Joern Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Devlist
Trifork has been a J2EE Licensee since 2000 and we have a clean room
implementation of the J2EE v 1.4 spec. and the product is called Trifork
T4. This includes a full CORBA 2.3 implementation
On Jul 4, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Joern Larsen wrote:
Dear Devlist
Trifork has been a J2EE Licensee since 2000 and we have a clean
room implementation of the J2EE v 1.4 spec. and the product is
called Trifork T4. This includes a full CORBA 2.3 implementation
with CSIv2, transaction
Geir,
Thanks for your questions, as I was trying to answer the response
ended up becoming rather lengthy...
First off, I don't think that it makes too much sense to just toss a
bunch of code over the fence; that would be a dead-end. We need to
set it up such that it becomes part of the
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
As for where it should be placed ASF-wise, I am thinking that it would
be best to place it as part of Geronimo initially, because it is a good
thing to have a concrete project [the appserver] to drive the
requirements. Also, the featureset required to do Java
20 matches
Mail list logo
