Ken wrote: > Before we start setting things up, I'd really like to > call for some opinions about the proposal from *outside* > the sponsoring TLP.
Please see the threads around "Changes to Incubator Process(es)" from January. There has been some call for the Incubator PMC to have more control over what comes into the Incubator, but not everyone agrees. And in my view it would take some clarification from the Board to change the current approach. Jim was going to take that up, or so I had the impression, but I don't know if the Board has yet considered the issue, or simply does not see fit to comment. A CORBA ORB can be a fairly interesting beast, although I'm all for elegant simplicity. Multiple realms of parts: the ORB, itself; skeleton and stub management; IDL and DII support; CSIv2 and IIOP protocols; COSNaming (should be tied into the Apache Directory Server); etc. For those who didn't sit on the CORBA Task Force, or aren't otherwise actively aware of the technology, a simple introduction is http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/corbafaq.htm. As of J2EE 1.3 and later, certain parts of CORBA (specifically, CSIv2 and COSNaming) are mandatory, so I can see why Geronimo would be interested. However, according to the the proposal, a complete CORBA ORB is proposed: This proposal is to build a compliant OMG CORBA server. The developer community will take [the initial contributions] as input and produce the best possible CORBA server In light of that, this could end up heading for TLP status, perhaps with other people who want to work on the rest of the OMG COS. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
