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 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 sub-project <flame suit on ;-)>? I really think
an orb is big enough, and important enough to be its own living/
breathing project.
I second that partially - is there a need to have two open source
ORBs compatible with the Apache License? Why would the donation
cause to create another ORB rather than to help OpenORB project to
fix their issues so that we could cleanly embbed it?
Is the OpenORB project really alive and kicking?
I just took a peek at the developers mailing list archives, and it
looks pretty quiet (the Geronimo dev list had more posts this weekend
than openorb has had this year). There was a short discussion on
their progress to become part of Apache, and it doesn't look very
likely because of the current lack of activity. It sounds like they
also had a potential licensing snag with Intalio that has been holding
things up. Interestingly, one poster pinned their hopes on becoming
part of Apache on just two potential users, Geronimo and Harmony.
What version of openorb was being used in Geronimo? Was it the newest
1.4 version?
Yes, v1.4.
Regards,
Alan
