Anders, Is there any updates in this topic? Have you started work on these classes? I have a time to work on this now and can do this task.
As far as I understood we agreed to include these classes into Yoko in separate jar. In the same jar with rmi implementations. Right? SY, Alexey 2006/8/16, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mosur Ravi, Balaji wrote: > I am a bit confused... Again, are we talking about overriding just the > javax.rmi.CORBA implementation of the JRE with our own implementation? Well, the problem is that you don't need it, we do (Harmony). So I agree, a separate jar would be better. geir > > > > Then the users of Yoko, can either choose to use the java.endorsed.dirs > option or the property javax.rmi.CORBA.PortableRemoteObjectClass > whichever makes sense... > > > > For clarity I would think of putting the implementation in a separate > jar & not in yoko-spec-corba. > > > > - Balaji > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexey Petrenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:19 AM > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Location of javax.rmi package > > > > So that's what I'm talking about... > > > > User adds CORBA implementation and receives new implementations of > > javax.rmi with it. Which overrides javax.rmi from the JRE. > > And this can mislead people... > > > > SY, Alxey > > > > 2006/8/16, Anders Hessellund Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> Separate jar for javax.rmi? > > >> I thought about putting it into the yoko-spec-corba jar along with the > >> org.omg classes. > > > > > >
-- Alexey A. Petrenko Intel Middleware Products Division
