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
