You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org> on 2005/07/01 10:32:34 UTC
Questions about CORBA
Hi,
I wonder what options do we have to use as a CORBA implementation in
Geronimo (as a ASF project). I'm not familiar with the nuances of
miscellaneous licenses, but unless I'm mistaken we don't have too much
choices - Sun's ORB or OpenORB, right? Again, unless I'm mistaken if I
were to be asked I'd say we ain't too happy with both, but couldn't say
why :( Wiki is silent on this, too.
Do we have to build our own CORBA implementation...well, I remember Dain
has been working on CORBA stuff in OpenEJB. Is it a complete rewrite
or a wrapper around OpenORB. Hmm, but I also remember we talked about
OpenORB troubles.
Yes, I'm lost and asking for a help - could anyone answer where we are
with the CORBA stuff?
Jacek
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 7/1/2005 10:37 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> To Rick and Alan, there's an option 4, Implement Our Own ORB. I
>don't think we're super-excited to start a project of that magnitude from
>scratch (we do tend to favor the whole "incorporate best of breed project"
>approach!), but I imagine it would be at least be considered if nothing
>else worked out.
>
>
Option 5, a vendor donate their ORB to ASF. Anyone? Anyone?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Jul 3, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Viacheslav N tararin wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom пишет:
>
>
>> If it comes down to fixing OpenORB or writing our own ORB, I think
>> writing our own will be faster. OpenORB is quite difficult to
>> understand and was written before many modern concepts like IoC
>> were introduced. The biggest problem this the current OpenORB
>> codebase is that it doesn't properly implement IIOP so it cant
>> talk to any other ORBs (and it is difficult to find the code to fix).
>>
>
> Can you provide an example? We using OpenORB for our products about
> 5 years, it properly work with OmniORB at less.
We were using the head version and it could not pass an array of
primitive values to another orb. IIRC, character types were not
being marshaled as a wchar marshaled, but it has been a while.
Also, the iiop operation name manger is broken. If you have an
overloaded method with an array type it will generate the wrong
operation name. For example:
void blah();
void blah(String[] foo);
-dain
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Viacheslav N tararin <ta...@dekasoft.com.ua>.
Dain Sundstrom пишет:
> If it comes down to fixing OpenORB or writing our own ORB, I think
> writing our own will be faster. OpenORB is quite difficult to
> understand and was written before many modern concepts like IoC were
> introduced. The biggest problem this the current OpenORB codebase is
> that it doesn't properly implement IIOP so it cant talk to any other
> ORBs (and it is difficult to find the code to fix).
Can you provide an example? We using OpenORB for our products about 5
years, it properly work with OmniORB at less.
> Anyway, I say we stick with the sun orb until something better comes
> along.
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>
>>> I thought about it, but I like Alan's idea better to fix OpenORB issues
>>> instead of reinventing the wheel. I'd believe it's the fine and
>>> straight
>>> way to incorporate yet another open source project under Geronimo
>>> umbrella or grasp the CORBA concepts patching OpenORB and forking it at
>>> some time to create a new project. I'm leaning towards the former
>>> rather
>>> than the latter.
>>>
>>
>> I can't say that I fancy trying to implement an ORB from scratch.
>> I was just trying to put all the options on the table. As for OpenORB, I
>> don't know enough about the state of that project and what would need to
>> be done to make any recommendation myself. Also, I'm not aware of any
>> particular info on the Wiki, but again, I haven't been much involved in
>> CORBA so far. Other than to curse at it, of course. :) It would be
>> great to find a winning path forward.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>> BTW, is there a wiki page about CORBA stuff? When I asked the
>>> question I
>>> first had looked at Wiki and couldn't find anything, so either it
>>> doesn't exist yet or is not easy to find. All in all, I'm sure we could
>>> add a bit more to Wiki now. The thread gives some alternatives to think
>>> about.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 7/1/2005 2:15 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> If it comes down to fixing OpenORB or writing our own ORB, I think
> writing our own will be faster. OpenORB is quite difficult to
> understand and was written before many modern concepts like IoC were
> introduced. The biggest problem this the current OpenORB codebase is
> that it doesn't properly implement IIOP so it cant talk to any other
> ORBs (and it is difficult to find the code to fix). Anyway, I say we
> stick with the sun orb until something better comes along.
Could we not invite the OpenORB people to help?
I think that ultimately, it would be great to have a full ASF licensed
ORB server.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
If it comes down to fixing OpenORB or writing our own ORB, I think
writing our own will be faster. OpenORB is quite difficult to
understand and was written before many modern concepts like IoC were
introduced. The biggest problem this the current OpenORB codebase is
that it doesn't properly implement IIOP so it cant talk to any other
ORBs (and it is difficult to find the code to fix). Anyway, I say we
stick with the sun orb until something better comes along.
-dain
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> I thought about it, but I like Alan's idea better to fix OpenORB
>> issues
>> instead of reinventing the wheel. I'd believe it's the fine and
>> straight
>> way to incorporate yet another open source project under Geronimo
>> umbrella or grasp the CORBA concepts patching OpenORB and forking
>> it at
>> some time to create a new project. I'm leaning towards the former
>> rather
>> than the latter.
>>
>
> I can't say that I fancy trying to implement an ORB from scratch.
> I was just trying to put all the options on the table. As for
> OpenORB, I
> don't know enough about the state of that project and what would
> need to
> be done to make any recommendation myself. Also, I'm not aware of any
> particular info on the Wiki, but again, I haven't been much
> involved in
> CORBA so far. Other than to curse at it, of course. :) It would be
> great to find a winning path forward.
>
> Aaron
>
>
>> BTW, is there a wiki page about CORBA stuff? When I asked the
>> question I
>> first had looked at Wiki and couldn't find anything, so either it
>> doesn't exist yet or is not easy to find. All in all, I'm sure we
>> could
>> add a bit more to Wiki now. The thread gives some alternatives to
>> think
>> about.
>>
>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>>
>
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> I thought about it, but I like Alan's idea better to fix OpenORB issues
> instead of reinventing the wheel. I'd believe it's the fine and straight
> way to incorporate yet another open source project under Geronimo
> umbrella or grasp the CORBA concepts patching OpenORB and forking it at
> some time to create a new project. I'm leaning towards the former rather
> than the latter.
I can't say that I fancy trying to implement an ORB from scratch.
I was just trying to put all the options on the table. As for OpenORB, I
don't know enough about the state of that project and what would need to
be done to make any recommendation myself. Also, I'm not aware of any
particular info on the Wiki, but again, I haven't been much involved in
CORBA so far. Other than to curse at it, of course. :) It would be
great to find a winning path forward.
Aaron
> BTW, is there a wiki page about CORBA stuff? When I asked the question I
> first had looked at Wiki and couldn't find anything, so either it
> doesn't exist yet or is not easy to find. All in all, I'm sure we could
> add a bit more to Wiki now. The thread gives some alternatives to think
> about.
>
> > Aaron
>
> Jacek
>
>
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> To Rick and Alan, there's an option 4, Implement Our Own ORB. I
> don't think we're super-excited to start a project of that magnitude from
> scratch (we do tend to favor the whole "incorporate best of breed project"
> approach!), but I imagine it would be at least be considered if nothing
> else worked out.
Hi Aaron,
I thought about it, but I like Alan's idea better to fix OpenORB issues
instead of reinventing the wheel. I'd believe it's the fine and straight
way to incorporate yet another open source project under Geronimo
umbrella or grasp the CORBA concepts patching OpenORB and forking it at
some time to create a new project. I'm leaning towards the former rather
than the latter.
BTW, is there a wiki page about CORBA stuff? When I asked the question I
first had looked at Wiki and couldn't find anything, so either it
doesn't exist yet or is not easy to find. All in all, I'm sure we could
add a bit more to Wiki now. The thread gives some alternatives to think
about.
> Aaron
Jacek
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I'm not sure there's a list of problems we had with OpenORB,
though you might poke around the dev list archives. I haven't really been
involved in the CORBA work, but I've heard several people who were
involved say that OpenORB has issues, and other open source ORBs that
might be candidates don't have Apache-style licenses. I don't think we're
thrilled with the prospect of coding directly to the JVM ORB, but it got
us over the TCK hump, so it was certainly expedient.
As far as I know, we're certainly willing to look at alternatives
at this point. But to go back to your question, someone else may need to
address the specific problems that were encountered in the past.
To Rick and Alan, there's an option 4, Implement Our Own ORB. I
don't think we're super-excited to start a project of that magnitude from
scratch (we do tend to favor the whole "incorporate best of breed project"
approach!), but I imagine it would be at least be considered if nothing
else worked out.
Aaron
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Viacheslav N tararin wrote:
> Hi.
> Where I can see where OpenORB need to be fixed to be usefull gor Geronimo?
>
> Alan D. Cabrera пишет:
>
> > There is an option 3, which we did not pursue because of time
> > constraints, fix and use OpenORB.
> >
> > Rick, I'm glad to hear that you're working on making our interop code
> > more portable. It's hard work and it definitely needs to be done. I'm
> > also glad to see that you're discussing your ideas w/ the community;
> > you are an example for us all.
> >
> > I am happy to help out where I can. Can you file a Jira issue so that
> > people know that you're cleaning up that part of the universe?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > On 7/1/2005 2:20 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> >
> >> I would state the options "use the ORB in the JVM" or "use some other
> >> open source implementation". Currently, Geronimo is using the Sun
> >> 1.4.2 ORB, and the OpenORB code is going to be removed very shortly.
> >> Unfortunately, the Geronimo code wrapped around the Sun ORB directly
> >> references Sun internal ORB classes (and in a couple cases,
> >> subclasses major ORB classes), so it is highly release dependent. For
> >> example, the current code won't compile cleanly on Sun's Java 5, or
> >> IBM's 1.4.2, because the underlying ORB code is completely different.
> >> Currently, I see two different solutions to this problem: 1) Write a
> >> different JVM-specific adaptor for each environment we wish to
> >> support, or 2) Try to find a means of implementing the current
> >> function using completely portable interceptor code.
> >> Solution 1) presents an interesting build problem, because regardless
> >> of which JVM you used to build Geronimo, at least one of the adaptors
> >> will fail to build because the required classes wouldn't be present.
> >> I still hopeful that solution 2) is possible, but I'm guessing that
> >> we might still end up with some small piece of JVM-specific code.
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I wonder what options do we have to use as a CORBA implementation in
> >>> Geronimo (as a ASF project). I'm not familiar with the nuances of
> >>> miscellaneous licenses, but unless I'm mistaken we don't have too
> >>> much choices - Sun's ORB or OpenORB, right? Again, unless I'm
> >>> mistaken if I were to be asked I'd say we ain't too happy with both,
> >>> but couldn't say why :( Wiki is silent on this, too.
> >>>
> >>> Do we have to build our own CORBA implementation...well, I remember
> >>> Dain has been working on CORBA stuff in OpenEJB. Is it a complete
> >>> rewrite or a wrapper around OpenORB. Hmm, but I also remember we
> >>> talked about OpenORB troubles.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I'm lost and asking for a help - could anyone answer where we
> >>> are with the CORBA stuff?
> >>>
> >>> Jacek
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Viacheslav N tararin <ta...@dekasoft.com.ua>.
Hi.
Where I can see where OpenORB need to be fixed to be usefull gor Geronimo?
Alan D. Cabrera пишет:
> There is an option 3, which we did not pursue because of time
> constraints, fix and use OpenORB.
>
> Rick, I'm glad to hear that you're working on making our interop code
> more portable. It's hard work and it definitely needs to be done. I'm
> also glad to see that you're discussing your ideas w/ the community;
> you are an example for us all.
>
> I am happy to help out where I can. Can you file a Jira issue so that
> people know that you're cleaning up that part of the universe?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On 7/1/2005 2:20 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> I would state the options "use the ORB in the JVM" or "use some other
>> open source implementation". Currently, Geronimo is using the Sun
>> 1.4.2 ORB, and the OpenORB code is going to be removed very shortly.
>> Unfortunately, the Geronimo code wrapped around the Sun ORB directly
>> references Sun internal ORB classes (and in a couple cases,
>> subclasses major ORB classes), so it is highly release dependent. For
>> example, the current code won't compile cleanly on Sun's Java 5, or
>> IBM's 1.4.2, because the underlying ORB code is completely different.
>> Currently, I see two different solutions to this problem: 1) Write a
>> different JVM-specific adaptor for each environment we wish to
>> support, or 2) Try to find a means of implementing the current
>> function using completely portable interceptor code.
>> Solution 1) presents an interesting build problem, because regardless
>> of which JVM you used to build Geronimo, at least one of the adaptors
>> will fail to build because the required classes wouldn't be present.
>> I still hopeful that solution 2) is possible, but I'm guessing that
>> we might still end up with some small piece of JVM-specific code.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wonder what options do we have to use as a CORBA implementation in
>>> Geronimo (as a ASF project). I'm not familiar with the nuances of
>>> miscellaneous licenses, but unless I'm mistaken we don't have too
>>> much choices - Sun's ORB or OpenORB, right? Again, unless I'm
>>> mistaken if I were to be asked I'd say we ain't too happy with both,
>>> but couldn't say why :( Wiki is silent on this, too.
>>>
>>> Do we have to build our own CORBA implementation...well, I remember
>>> Dain has been working on CORBA stuff in OpenEJB. Is it a complete
>>> rewrite or a wrapper around OpenORB. Hmm, but I also remember we
>>> talked about OpenORB troubles.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm lost and asking for a help - could anyone answer where we
>>> are with the CORBA stuff?
>>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
There is an option 3, which we did not pursue because of time
constraints, fix and use OpenORB.
Rick, I'm glad to hear that you're working on making our interop code
more portable. It's hard work and it definitely needs to be done. I'm
also glad to see that you're discussing your ideas w/ the community; you
are an example for us all.
I am happy to help out where I can. Can you file a Jira issue so that
people know that you're cleaning up that part of the universe?
Regards,
Alan
On 7/1/2005 2:20 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I would state the options "use the ORB in the JVM" or "use some other
> open source implementation". Currently, Geronimo is using the Sun
> 1.4.2 ORB, and the OpenORB code is going to be removed very shortly.
> Unfortunately, the Geronimo code wrapped around the Sun ORB directly
> references Sun internal ORB classes (and in a couple cases, subclasses
> major ORB classes), so it is highly release dependent. For example,
> the current code won't compile cleanly on Sun's Java 5, or IBM's
> 1.4.2, because the underlying ORB code is completely different.
> Currently, I see two different solutions to this problem: 1) Write a
> different JVM-specific adaptor for each environment we wish to
> support, or 2) Try to find a means of implementing the current
> function using completely portable interceptor code.
> Solution 1) presents an interesting build problem, because regardless
> of which JVM you used to build Geronimo, at least one of the adaptors
> will fail to build because the required classes wouldn't be present.
> I still hopeful that solution 2) is possible, but I'm guessing that we
> might still end up with some small piece of JVM-specific code.
>
> Rick
>
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder what options do we have to use as a CORBA implementation in
>> Geronimo (as a ASF project). I'm not familiar with the nuances of
>> miscellaneous licenses, but unless I'm mistaken we don't have too
>> much choices - Sun's ORB or OpenORB, right? Again, unless I'm
>> mistaken if I were to be asked I'd say we ain't too happy with both,
>> but couldn't say why :( Wiki is silent on this, too.
>>
>> Do we have to build our own CORBA implementation...well, I remember
>> Dain has been working on CORBA stuff in OpenEJB. Is it a complete
>> rewrite or a wrapper around OpenORB. Hmm, but I also remember we
>> talked about OpenORB troubles.
>>
>> Yes, I'm lost and asking for a help - could anyone answer where we
>> are with the CORBA stuff?
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>>
Re: Questions about CORBA
Posted by Rick McGuire <ob...@gmail.com>.
I would state the options "use the ORB in the JVM" or "use some other
open source implementation". Currently, Geronimo is using the Sun 1.4.2
ORB, and the OpenORB code is going to be removed very shortly.
Unfortunately, the Geronimo code wrapped around the Sun ORB directly
references Sun internal ORB classes (and in a couple cases, subclasses
major ORB classes), so it is highly release dependent. For example, the
current code won't compile cleanly on Sun's Java 5, or IBM's 1.4.2,
because the underlying ORB code is completely different. Currently, I
see two different solutions to this problem: 1) Write a different
JVM-specific adaptor for each environment we wish to support, or 2) Try
to find a means of implementing the current function using completely
portable interceptor code.
Solution 1) presents an interesting build problem, because regardless of
which JVM you used to build Geronimo, at least one of the adaptors will
fail to build because the required classes wouldn't be present. I still
hopeful that solution 2) is possible, but I'm guessing that we might
still end up with some small piece of JVM-specific code.
Rick
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder what options do we have to use as a CORBA implementation in
> Geronimo (as a ASF project). I'm not familiar with the nuances of
> miscellaneous licenses, but unless I'm mistaken we don't have too much
> choices - Sun's ORB or OpenORB, right? Again, unless I'm mistaken if I
> were to be asked I'd say we ain't too happy with both, but couldn't
> say why :( Wiki is silent on this, too.
>
> Do we have to build our own CORBA implementation...well, I remember
> Dain has been working on CORBA stuff in OpenEJB. Is it a complete
> rewrite or a wrapper around OpenORB. Hmm, but I also remember we
> talked about OpenORB troubles.
>
> Yes, I'm lost and asking for a help - could anyone answer where we are
> with the CORBA stuff?
>
> Jacek
>
>