You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com> on 2006/09/29 12:01:46 UTC
Package for the ORB adapters
Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've been
working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the process of
creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with the sunorb and
created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain the yoko adapters.
This gave the tree packages of org.openejb.corba.yoko and
org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which is
"owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new package
structure for this? I was originally thinking
org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
having two different modules share the same packaging is making me a
little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have any
preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
Rick
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>> I'm so excited for this I can hardly wait. I feel like a kid in
>>>> december dreaming of the wonderful presents I'll get :D
>>> And I'm dying to get this checked in! You have no idea how many
>>> build changes, package changes, repository changes, etc. I've had
>>> to marshall this code through to reach this point :-)
>>
>> Probably feedback you don't want to hear, but it is possible to
>> submit patches as you go :) Not *everything* has to be perfect
>> before you submit the code. I know it's not easy, just sayin'. ;)
>>
>> Were you a committer (likely scenario), we'd hope you'd check in
>> what you have on a periodic basis instead of going several months
>> between like Mr. Cabrera always used to. He'd always be
>> complaining about code changing too -- I had to beg and plead to
>> get him to check code in. But it's all good cause now I get to
>> pick on him for it ;)
>>
>> Regardless, we appreciate your effort greatly. I'm also looking
>> forward to the code!
> Normally, I'd agree with you. But I really only just reached the
> point where I have code that can be checked in without breaking the
> existing corba support. It was a case of needing to get things
> cleaned up enough that things could coexist. Now if I could just
> get a set of patches to submit that would stay good for a day or
> two :-)
Hehe. Sounds like you just got unlucky. Definitely keep an eye out
for proposed changes that would disrupt you further. We might be
able to hold them till you get your stuff in.
-David
> Rick
>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support
>>>>>>> I've been working on, this is a good time to ask the
>>>>>>> question. In the process of creating the Yoko support, I
>>>>>>> copied what was done with the sunorb and created a subpackage
>>>>>>> of org.openejb.corba to contain the yoko adapters. This gave
>>>>>>> the tree packages of org.openejb.corba.yoko and
>>>>>>> org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so
>>>>>>> they were built as separate units, I maintained those package
>>>>>>> names. Is it legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba
>>>>>>> parent package (which is "owned" by the openejb-core module),
>>>>>>> or should I create a new package structure for this? I was
>>>>>>> originally thinking org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and
>>>>>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but having two different
>>>>>>> modules share the same packaging is making me a little
>>>>>>> uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
>>>>>>> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody
>>>>>>> have any preferences, or should I just keep what I was using
>>>>>>> originally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have
>>>>>> the lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
>>>>> Because until we've successfully completed the tck, we don't
>>>>> know it does the same thing. Once we've verified that the yoko
>>>>> code is a full function replacement to the sunorb, then we can
>>>>> decide to chuck it out. But until we can verify it, or at
>>>>> least know what needs to be fixed to make things pass, we still
>>>>> need to keep the other code around as an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> I'm so excited for this I can hardly wait. I feel like a kid in
>>> december dreaming of the wonderful presents I'll get :D
>> And I'm dying to get this checked in! You have no idea how many
>> build changes, package changes, repository changes, etc. I've had to
>> marshall this code through to reach this point :-)
>
> Probably feedback you don't want to hear, but it is possible to submit
> patches as you go :) Not *everything* has to be perfect before you
> submit the code. I know it's not easy, just sayin'. ;)
>
> Were you a committer (likely scenario), we'd hope you'd check in what
> you have on a periodic basis instead of going several months between
> like Mr. Cabrera always used to. He'd always be complaining about
> code changing too -- I had to beg and plead to get him to check code
> in. But it's all good cause now I get to pick on him for it ;)
>
> Regardless, we appreciate your effort greatly. I'm also looking
> forward to the code!
Normally, I'd agree with you. But I really only just reached the point
where I have code that can be checked in without breaking the existing
corba support. It was a case of needing to get things cleaned up enough
that things could coexist. Now if I could just get a set of patches to
submit that would stay good for a day or two :-)
Rick
>
> -David
>
>> Rick
>>
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
>>>>>> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
>>>>>> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
>>>>>> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to
>>>>>> contain the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
>>>>>> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they
>>>>>> were built as separate units, I maintained those package names.
>>>>>> Is it legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent
>>>>>> package (which is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should
>>>>>> I create a new package structure for this? I was originally
>>>>>> thinking org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and
>>>>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but having two different modules
>>>>>> share the same packaging is making me a little uneasy. Perhaps
>>>>>> org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would
>>>>>> be better choices. Anybody have any preferences, or should I
>>>>>> just keep what I was using originally?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have the
>>>>> lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
>>>> Because until we've successfully completed the tck, we don't know
>>>> it does the same thing. Once we've verified that the yoko code is
>>>> a full function replacement to the sunorb, then we can decide to
>>>> chuck it out. But until we can verify it, or at least know what
>>>> needs to be fixed to make things pass, we still need to keep the
>>>> other code around as an option.
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I'm so excited for this I can hardly wait. I feel like a kid in
>> december dreaming of the wonderful presents I'll get :D
> And I'm dying to get this checked in! You have no idea how many
> build changes, package changes, repository changes, etc. I've had
> to marshall this code through to reach this point :-)
Probably feedback you don't want to hear, but it is possible to
submit patches as you go :) Not *everything* has to be perfect
before you submit the code. I know it's not easy, just sayin'. ;)
Were you a committer (likely scenario), we'd hope you'd check in what
you have on a periodic basis instead of going several months between
like Mr. Cabrera always used to. He'd always be complaining about
code changing too -- I had to beg and plead to get him to check code
in. But it's all good cause now I get to pick on him for it ;)
Regardless, we appreciate your effort greatly. I'm also looking
forward to the code!
-David
> Rick
>
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support
>>>>> I've been working on, this is a good time to ask the question.
>>>>> In the process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was
>>>>> done with the sunorb and created a subpackage of
>>>>> org.openejb.corba to contain the yoko adapters. This gave the
>>>>> tree packages of org.openejb.corba.yoko and
>>>>> org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they
>>>>> were built as separate units, I maintained those package
>>>>> names. Is it legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba
>>>>> parent package (which is "owned" by the openejb-core module),
>>>>> or should I create a new package structure for this? I was
>>>>> originally thinking org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and
>>>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but having two different modules
>>>>> share the same packaging is making me a little uneasy. Perhaps
>>>>> org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and org.apache.openejb.sun.orb
>>>>> would be better choices. Anybody have any preferences, or
>>>>> should I just keep what I was using originally?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have
>>>> the lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
>>> Because until we've successfully completed the tck, we don't know
>>> it does the same thing. Once we've verified that the yoko code
>>> is a full function replacement to the sunorb, then we can decide
>>> to chuck it out. But until we can verify it, or at least know
>>> what needs to be fixed to make things pass, we still need to keep
>>> the other code around as an option.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>
>>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I'm so excited for this I can hardly wait. I feel like a kid in
> december dreaming of the wonderful presents I'll get :D
And I'm dying to get this checked in! You have no idea how many build
changes, package changes, repository changes, etc. I've had to marshall
this code through to reach this point :-)
Rick
>
> -dain
>
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
>>>> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
>>>> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
>>>> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain
>>>> the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
>>>> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>>>
>>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
>>>> built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
>>>> legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which
>>>> is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new
>>>> package structure for this? I was originally thinking
>>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
>>>> having two different modules share the same packaging is making me
>>>> a little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
>>>> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have
>>>> any preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have the
>>> lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
>> Because until we've successfully completed the tck, we don't know it
>> does the same thing. Once we've verified that the yoko code is a
>> full function replacement to the sunorb, then we can decide to chuck
>> it out. But until we can verify it, or at least know what needs to
>> be fixed to make things pass, we still need to keep the other code
>> around as an option.
>>
>> Rick
>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I'm so excited for this I can hardly wait. I feel like a kid in
december dreaming of the wonderful presents I'll get :D
-dain
On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
>>> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
>>> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
>>> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to
>>> contain the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
>>> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>>
>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they
>>> were built as separate units, I maintained those package names.
>>> Is it legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent
>>> package (which is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should
>>> I create a new package structure for this? I was originally
>>> thinking org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and
>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but having two different modules
>>> share the same packaging is making me a little uneasy. Perhaps
>>> org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would
>>> be better choices. Anybody have any preferences, or should I
>>> just keep what I was using originally?
>>
>>
>> Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have the
>> lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
> Because until we've successfully completed the tck, we don't know
> it does the same thing. Once we've verified that the yoko code is
> a full function replacement to the sunorb, then we can decide to
> chuck it out. But until we can verify it, or at least know what
> needs to be fixed to make things pass, we still need to keep the
> other code around as an option.
>
> Rick
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've been
>> working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the process
>> of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with the sunorb
>> and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain the yoko
>> adapters. This gave the tree packages of org.openejb.corba.yoko and
>> org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>
>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
>> built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
>> legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which
>> is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new
>> package structure for this? I was originally thinking
>> org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
>> having two different modules share the same packaging is making me a
>> little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
>> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have any
>> preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
>
>
> Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have the
> lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
Because until we've successfully completed the tck, we don't know it
does the same thing. Once we've verified that the yoko code is a full
function replacement to the sunorb, then we can decide to chuck it out.
But until we can verify it, or at least know what needs to be fixed to
make things pass, we still need to keep the other code around as an option.
Rick
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain
> the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>
> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
> built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
> legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which
> is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new
> package structure for this? I was originally thinking
> org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
> having two different modules share the same packaging is making me
> a little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have
> any preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
Why would we want to keep the sun orb stuff around if we have the
lovely Yoko code that does the same thing?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>> We could do
>>
>> modules/openejb-corba
>> modules/openejb-yoko
>> modules/openejb-sunorb
>>
>> .. and have openejb-sunorb disabled by default, enableable with a -
>> D flag of our choosing. I.e.
>>
>> ---pom.xml---
>> <modules>
>> <module>openejb-pkgen-builder</module>
>> <module>openejb-core</module>
>> <module>openejb-builder</module>
>> </modules>
>>
>> <profiles>
>> <profile>
>> <id>sunorb</id>
>> <activation>
>> <property>
>> <name>sunorb</name>
>> </property>
>> </activation>
>> <modules>
>> <module>openejb-sunrob</module>
>> </modules>
>> </profile>
>> </profiles>
>> -------------
>>
>> mvn clean install
>> (no sunorb built)
>>
>> mvn clean install -Dsunorb=true
>> (includes the openejb-sunorb module)
> [...]
> That works for me. I'll need some pointers on how to do this in
> m2, but sounds manageable.
You should be able to copy paste the "<profiles>...</profiles>"
section I posted right into the modules/pom.xml file and that's about
it. The other two modules, 'openejb-corba' and 'openejb-yoko' can
just be added normally.
> Now, given that, what package name should I use for each module?
> From this, it sounds like org.apache.openejb.yoko and
> org.apache.openejb.sunorb would be fine.
Works for me!
Heads up, use the new ASL 2.0b license on your files:
/**
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
-David
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
>>>> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
>>>> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
>>>> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain
>>>> the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
>>>> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>>
>>> I like this. FYI, though s/org.openejb/org.apache.openejb/
>> Well, I was talking in the past tense :-) That change was this
>> morning's task.
>>
>>>
>>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
>>>> built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
>>>> legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which
>>>> is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new
>>>> package structure for this? I was originally thinking
>>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
>>>> having two different modules share the same packaging is making me
>>>> a little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
>>>> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have
>>>> any preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Couple questions. Is there any shared code between
>>> o.a.openejb.corba.yoko and o.a.openejb.corba.sunorb that would/could
>>> go into o.a.openejb.corba? Is it possible to split
>>> o.a.openejb.corba out into two (maybe three) modules?
>> There is no code sharing between the yoko code and the sunorb code.
>> This is essentially just bridge code that connects the ORB
>> independent code in org.apache.openejb.corba to the specific ORB.
>> The org.apache.openejb.corba package has a number of subpackages that
>> are also independent of the choice of ORBs.
>>
>>>
>>> modules/openejb-corba (if there's shared code)
>>> modules/openejb-yoko
>>> modules/openejb-sunorb
>> Right now, I have the yoko package and the sun package as separate
>> top-level repositories because of the build issues involved. The
>> Yoko package will build with any JVM (I've tested with Sun 1.4.2, Sun
>> 5.0, IBM 1.4.2, and IBM 5.0). The sunorb package can ONLY be built
>> with Sun 1.4.2, so I wanted it to be a separate checkout/build. And
>> because of these changes, the openejb2 tree can be built with all of
>> these JVMs too. If desired, the yoko code can easily be merged into
>> the openejb2 tree as a sub-module since it will compile cleanly
>> everywhere. The sunorb code needs to be kept to one side because of
>> the build conflicts.
>
> Great. We could do
>
> modules/openejb-corba
> modules/openejb-yoko
> modules/openejb-sunorb
>
> .. and have openejb-sunorb disabled by default, enableable with a -D
> flag of our choosing. I.e.
>
> ---pom.xml---
> <modules>
> <module>openejb-pkgen-builder</module>
> <module>openejb-core</module>
> <module>openejb-builder</module>
> </modules>
>
> <profiles>
> <profile>
> <id>sunorb</id>
> <activation>
> <property>
> <name>sunorb</name>
> </property>
> </activation>
> <modules>
> <module>openejb-sunrob</module>
> </modules>
> </profile>
> </profiles>
> -------------
>
> mvn clean install
> (no sunorb built)
>
> mvn clean install -Dsunorb=true
> (includes the openejb-sunorb module)
>
> I'm sure Jason Dillon can think of a way where it's enabled magically
> based on what JDK you're using. He did it in geronimo specs. But
> something like this at least meets the requirements.
That works for me. I'll need some pointers on how to do this in m2, but
sounds manageable.
Now, given that, what package name should I use for each module? From
this, it sounds like org.apache.openejb.yoko and
org.apache.openejb.sunorb would be fine.
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
>>> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
>>> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
>>> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to
>>> contain the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
>>> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>>
>> I like this. FYI, though s/org.openejb/org.apache.openejb/
> Well, I was talking in the past tense :-) That change was this
> morning's task.
>
>>
>>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they
>>> were built as separate units, I maintained those package names.
>>> Is it legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent
>>> package (which is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should
>>> I create a new package structure for this? I was originally
>>> thinking org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and
>>> org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but having two different modules
>>> share the same packaging is making me a little uneasy. Perhaps
>>> org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would
>>> be better choices. Anybody have any preferences, or should I
>>> just keep what I was using originally?
>>>
>>
>> Couple questions. Is there any shared code between
>> o.a.openejb.corba.yoko and o.a.openejb.corba.sunorb that would/
>> could go into o.a.openejb.corba? Is it possible to split
>> o.a.openejb.corba out into two (maybe three) modules?
> There is no code sharing between the yoko code and the sunorb
> code. This is essentially just bridge code that connects the ORB
> independent code in org.apache.openejb.corba to the specific ORB.
> The org.apache.openejb.corba package has a number of subpackages
> that are also independent of the choice of ORBs.
>
>>
>> modules/openejb-corba (if there's shared code)
>> modules/openejb-yoko
>> modules/openejb-sunorb
> Right now, I have the yoko package and the sun package as separate
> top-level repositories because of the build issues involved. The
> Yoko package will build with any JVM (I've tested with Sun 1.4.2,
> Sun 5.0, IBM 1.4.2, and IBM 5.0). The sunorb package can ONLY be
> built with Sun 1.4.2, so I wanted it to be a separate checkout/
> build. And because of these changes, the openejb2 tree can be
> built with all of these JVMs too. If desired, the yoko code can
> easily be merged into the openejb2 tree as a sub-module since it
> will compile cleanly everywhere. The sunorb code needs to be kept
> to one side because of the build conflicts.
Great. We could do
modules/openejb-corba
modules/openejb-yoko
modules/openejb-sunorb
.. and have openejb-sunorb disabled by default, enableable with a -D
flag of our choosing. I.e.
---pom.xml---
<modules>
<module>openejb-pkgen-builder</module>
<module>openejb-core</module>
<module>openejb-builder</module>
</modules>
<profiles>
<profile>
<id>sunorb</id>
<activation>
<property>
<name>sunorb</name>
</property>
</activation>
<modules>
<module>openejb-sunrob</module>
</modules>
</profile>
</profiles>
-------------
mvn clean install
(no sunorb built)
mvn clean install -Dsunorb=true
(includes the openejb-sunorb module)
I'm sure Jason Dillon can think of a way where it's enabled magically
based on what JDK you're using. He did it in geronimo specs. But
something like this at least meets the requirements.
-David
>
> Rick
>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've been
>> working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the process
>> of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with the sunorb
>> and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain the yoko
>> adapters. This gave the tree packages of org.openejb.corba.yoko and
>> org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
>
> I like this. FYI, though s/org.openejb/org.apache.openejb/
Well, I was talking in the past tense :-) That change was this
morning's task.
>
>> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
>> built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
>> legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which
>> is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new
>> package structure for this? I was originally thinking
>> org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
>> having two different modules share the same packaging is making me a
>> little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
>> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have any
>> preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
>>
>
> Couple questions. Is there any shared code between
> o.a.openejb.corba.yoko and o.a.openejb.corba.sunorb that would/could
> go into o.a.openejb.corba? Is it possible to split o.a.openejb.corba
> out into two (maybe three) modules?
There is no code sharing between the yoko code and the sunorb code.
This is essentially just bridge code that connects the ORB independent
code in org.apache.openejb.corba to the specific ORB. The
org.apache.openejb.corba package has a number of subpackages that are
also independent of the choice of ORBs.
>
> modules/openejb-corba (if there's shared code)
> modules/openejb-yoko
> modules/openejb-sunorb
Right now, I have the yoko package and the sun package as separate
top-level repositories because of the build issues involved. The Yoko
package will build with any JVM (I've tested with Sun 1.4.2, Sun 5.0,
IBM 1.4.2, and IBM 5.0). The sunorb package can ONLY be built with Sun
1.4.2, so I wanted it to be a separate checkout/build. And because of
these changes, the openejb2 tree can be built with all of these JVMs
too. If desired, the yoko code can easily be merged into the openejb2
tree as a sub-module since it will compile cleanly everywhere. The
sunorb code needs to be kept to one side because of the build conflicts.
Rick
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
>
Re: Package for the ORB adapters
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Since I need to redo the packaging for the Yoko ORB support I've
> been working on, this is a good time to ask the question. In the
> process of creating the Yoko support, I copied what was done with
> the sunorb and created a subpackage of org.openejb.corba to contain
> the yoko adapters. This gave the tree packages of
> org.openejb.corba.yoko and org.openejb.corba.sunorb.
I like this. FYI, though s/org.openejb/org.apache.openejb/
> Then, when I split these two out into separate modules so they were
> built as separate units, I maintained those package names. Is it
> legitimate to still use the org.openejb.corba parent package (which
> is "owned" by the openejb-core module), or should I create a new
> package structure for this? I was originally thinking
> org.apache.openejb.orb.yoko and org.apache.openejb.orb.sunorb, but
> having two different modules share the same packaging is making me
> a little uneasy. Perhaps org.apache.openejb.yoko.orb and
> org.apache.openejb.sun.orb would be better choices. Anybody have
> any preferences, or should I just keep what I was using originally?
>
Couple questions. Is there any shared code between
o.a.openejb.corba.yoko and o.a.openejb.corba.sunorb that would/could
go into o.a.openejb.corba? Is it possible to split o.a.openejb.corba
out into two (maybe three) modules?
modules/openejb-corba (if there's shared code)
modules/openejb-yoko
modules/openejb-sunorb
Thoughts?
-David