At 09:39 AM 10/28/2005, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
The Trifork RMI/IIOP has a quite decent implementation of all of the
javax.rmi.CORBA stuff that we can bring right in with little
modification, so I was thinking that we should use that.
However, if you know that those ValueHandlers are good, we
At 08:07 PM 10/27/2005, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I think for those platforms you mention below the IBM is the only
JDK to choose
from. Although, on Windows and Linux its a pretty good choice too :)
Of course I would beg to differ ;)
Have you fired G up on JRockit yet? I'd be curious to compare
On Oct 27, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Andy Piper wrote:
The latest JRockit implements the appropriate parts of Unsafe - I
know because I made them put it in so that I could implement the
WebLogic ValueHandler on top of it.
But why not just use the VM's ValueHandler? The Sun and IBM one's
are bot
On 10/27/2005 5:39 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that we should build a complete stand-
alone and quality ORB. Once we're up and running, we might even see
Sun chime in, and have them adopt this the same way we've seen with
many other Apache Java projects. The
pache.org> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution
Somehow my spam filter removed your original e-mail
At 07:09 PM 10/26/2005, Rick McGuire wrote:
Actually, then don't. The IBM JVM certainly doesn't, and I don't
believe JRocket does either. And it is
JRockit uses the Sun ORB. The IBM VM is the notable exception I
referred to. That's why I a
At 01:51 PM 10/27/2005, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
One issue is that RMI needs to be able to write the value of a final
instance field (to de-serialize an object) and this is something that
cannot be done with reflection. So for this we are using
com.sun.Unsafe (which is the internal Sun API to i
You can have a J2EE 1.4 compatible product which soley supports J2SE
1.5 as long as your implementation passes CTS.
The minimum requirement is J2SE 1.4.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
I think we should be supporting 1.4.2 (and 1.5) for a while, as many
large enterprise systems a
On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Can I ask why portability is critical? Most VM's (with one notable
exception) use the Sun ORB so depending on it doesn't seem such a big
deal to me, especially if its a necessary evil. I agree support
for J2SE
5.0 is essential, but its pretty e
I pulled down the code an it looks like a lot of IIOP stuff is
there, what is missing for a full ORB? I'm not sure how I can help
with this without the full orb code. If we had that, I could try
integrating it into OpenEJB, but I am completely lost.
Sure, there is not an orb there yet; an
As far as I remember, with the 1.3 CTS there was signature tests that
would allow testing "J2EE 1.3 Compatible" on a 1.4 VM. I have not
seen the equivalent J2EE 1.4 tests, but there may be (or perhaps
coming) a similar set of tests that allow a J2EE 1.4 compatibility
test to complete on a
One reason is that we may need something like this for harmony...
On Oct 26, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Andy Piper wrote:
At 04:26 PM 10/26/2005, Rick McGuire wrote:
The most critical need right now is to have a replacement to the
Sun ORB that would allow portability to other JVM
impelementations.
John Sisson wrote:
I think we should be supporting 1.4.2 (and 1.5) for a while, as many
large enterprise systems are slow (like a year or two behind) to move to
recent (1.5) versions of Java, for many reasons.
J2EE 1.4 requires Java 1.4 whereas Java EE 1.5 does Java 5 (the acronyms
used in t
Lars Kühne wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I want to extend an invitation out to all the OpenORB developers who
might be interested in helping out. Lots of great work out here!
I'm one of them, but I don't use Geronimo and I haven't looked at G's
architecture.
Some of these points have al
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I want to extend an invitation out to all the OpenORB developers who
might be interested in helping out. Lots of great work out here!
I'm one of them, but I don't use Geronimo and I haven't looked at G's
architecture.
Some of these points have already been made in t
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote, On 10/26/2005 7:51 AM:
As Alan suggests, I think we should try to find the people that are
interested in participating in this project, and start working on
some adding stuff to the Wiki in relations to this. I think we need
to find a smaller forum where we can
Calvin Austin wrote:
Rick McGuire wrote:
Andy Piper wrote:
At 04:26 PM 10/26/2005, Rick McGuire wrote:
The most critical need right now is to have a replacement to the
Sun ORB that would allow portability to other JVM
impelementations. The lack of a full-function compliant ORB is the
ma
Rick McGuire wrote:
Andy Piper wrote:
At 04:26 PM 10/26/2005, Rick McGuire wrote:
The most critical need right now is to have a replacement to the Sun
ORB that would allow portability to other JVM impelementations. The
lack of a full-function compliant ORB is the main factor locking
Geron
Andy Piper wrote:
At 04:26 PM 10/26/2005, Rick McGuire wrote:
The most critical need right now is to have a replacement to the Sun
ORB that would allow portability to other JVM impelementations. The
lack of a full-function compliant ORB is the main factor locking
Geronimo in to the Sun 1.4.
pache.org> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As [EMAIL PR
At 04:26 PM 10/26/2005, Rick McGuire wrote:
The most critical need right now is to have a replacement to the Sun
ORB that would allow portability to other JVM impelementations. The
lack of a full-function compliant ORB is the main factor locking
Geronimo in to the Sun 1.4.2 JVM.
I think the ge
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
As Alan suggests, I think we should try to find the people that are
interested in participating in this project, and start working on
some adding stuff to the Wiki in relations to this. I think we need
to find a smaller forum where we can discuss the architectur
On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
As Alan suggests, I think we should try to find the people that are
interested in participating in this project, and start working on
some adding stuff to the Wiki in relations to this. I think we
need to find a smaller forum where
As Alan suggests, I think we should try to find the people that are
interested in participating in this project, and start working on
some adding stuff to the Wiki in relations to this. I think we need
to find a smaller forum where we can discuss the architecture of the
ORB itself. How d
I want to extend an invitation out to all the OpenORB developers who
might be interested in helping out. Lots of great work out here!
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 10/25/2005 8:19 AM:
For those of you that missed it Kresten wrote in the JIRA entry:
I think that the intention here is pretty clear. How do you think we
should get started?
geir
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I pulled down the code an it looks like a lot of IIOP stuff is
there, what is missing for a full ORB? I'm not sure how I can help
with this
That's what I asked Kresten to forward to the list :)
geir
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
For those of you that missed it Kresten wrote in the JIRA entry:
As has been discussed previously, Trifork wants to d
I pulled down the code an it looks like a lot of IIOP stuff is there,
what is missing for a full ORB? I'm not sure how I can help with
this without the full orb code. If we had that, I could try
integrating it into OpenEJB, but I am completely lost.
I had this same problem with the last I
How are things going? Do you think that it's possible to get the code
in our repo and you work from there?
Regards,
Alan
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote, On 9/16/2005 9:04 AM:
Hi there, ...
It has been up to a slow start, but I have finally gotten something
rolling now.
As I have mentioned e
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
Hi there, ...
Hi Kresten,
I'm not prepared to comment on the details, but have a general question.
- nio/select is used to avoid having an active thread listening for
incoming messages
It sounds like Java 5. Will it require this Java version? Geronimo is
1.4-ba
Hi there, ...
It has been up to a slow start, but I have finally gotten something
rolling now.
As I have mentioned earlier, I wanted to redo the I/O subsystem, and
this is going quite well. The first milestone I am targeting is to
be able to do client side stream-based invocations; i.e.
I know that a few people are interested in solving this using
ActiveIO. Hiram?
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 7/8/2005 5:49 PM:
Is someone actively working on the generic interfaces for wrapping the SSL
code? IBM is also interested in supporting this effort as it would make the
Is someone actively working on the generic interfaces for wrapping the SSL
code? IBM is also interested in supporting this effort as it would make the
IBM JDK a valid option as well as jRockit I'd suspect. We'd like to make
sure we don't go off in the weeds to solve the same problem.
Thoughts?
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
A kickoff phone call meeting occured between TriFork and a few PMC members.
July 8th 2005, 4:00pm GMT
Thanks Alan for the minutes. I wish I had been longer, but had to leave.
It was my pleasure to hear you all. What a fun to hear you after so
much time working together
34 matches
Mail list logo
