2007/9/9, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Saturday 08 September 2007, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > It sounds like the most responses favored Geronimo for the ORB code > > and the bindings bits to CXF. > > > > We can do this in successive stages but at a minimum I think we need > > to outline the split of the code to the projects. Dan, would you be > > willing to outline the proposal for the split so a proposal can be > > drafted for consideration to the PMCs? > > I'd love to help out, but I'm on vacation until Thursday with very spotty > net access. Also, not being a Yoko committer, I'm not 100% familiar > with the code. Look at the top level dirs, I think it would be: > > > Core ORB stuff: > core > rmi-impl > rmi-spec > yoko-spec-corba (this possibly should go to Geronimo specs) > distribution/src/main/samples/orb > > > Binding stuff: > api > bindings > tools > maven-plugin > distribution/src/main/samples/ws > > Could the Yoko experts confirm the above? Could the Yoko experts also > figure out which commiters have been involved in which areas? My > connection is too flakey to run a bunch of svn logs. Keeps timing > out. :-( > > From a CXF side, if the CXF PPMC approves, it would most like pull the > stuff into a branch for refactoring, maybe into the sandbox, before > sending to trunk. The tools would require a bit of work to fit into > the CXF tool structure. The binding stuff looks a bit cleaner. We'd > also obviously need to double check that the binding stuff works with > the JDK ORB. (it supposedly does, in theory, I think.) However, all > that is stuff to worry about after the votes and if the votes pass. I > imagine there would be similar procedures that would need to be done for > Geronimo/Harmony/OpenEJB. > > > > > I'll take a whack at the porposal which will include: > > > > 1. Background for the move > > 2. Code to be moved > > 3. Committers that would come with the code base. > > > > Then ask the PMCs for their response. > > > > I can start a separate vote on which direction as a starting point > > which sounds like: > > > > Geronimo / CXF > > OpenEJB / CXF > > Harmony / CXF > > > > Although, based on the feedback that Geronimo / CXF seems to be the > > predominant choice. If folks feel like we should formalize this for > > a vote respond on this thread. > > One thing I'd also like to point out about the Geronimo/CXF proposal that > I personally think is an advantage over Harmony: both projects use > Maven 2 and do deploy snapshots and stuff on a fairly regular basis. Harmony produces snapshots on regular basis too... But not use Maven, that's true.
SY, Alexey > This makes it MUCH easier (IMO) for other projects to take a dependency > on those projects and pull those artifacts in. Thus, if Harmony or > some other project needs an ORB, they can grab it easily. If they need > some parts of the IDL tooling from CXF (for example, if someone wants to > start writing an idlj), they could grab it. etc.... > > > -- > J. Daniel Kulp > Principal Engineer > IONA > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog >
