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
