Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Its been a while since we originally talked about next steps for Yoko. > Its been a busy summer for lots of folks and I expect most people are > back in the saddle and ready to rumble. > > I talked with Rick McGuire and was considering the discussion that we > had previously. In summary there were two proposals put forth. > > Regardless of how we move the code I would think that committers on Yoko > should join the appropriate projects after a project chooses to accept > the code. It makes little sense to me to accept the code and not the > community since the community has already established their karma as > Apache committers and are most familiar with the code base. I would > expect the receiving project to vote on the donation and committers but > since we operate in a world of trust and collaboration I wouldn't see > any benefit to moving code without the community; to me that would be a > non-starter.
I strongly agree, to the extent that the code should only go to where the existing community of committers and contributors feel most comfortable. Wherever it ends up both Geronimo and Harmony (and others) will be using the code and interacting with the people who are caring for it. > 1. Move Yoko in its entirety to another TLP and make it a sub-project. > The TLP PMC would provide the oversight and it would no longer be in > incubator. > > 2. Break Yoko up into two components which would be the core ORB with > the IDLJ compiler and the JAX-WS bindings work. > > Both proposals have pluses and minuses. Here is my thinking in no > particular order. > > The two suggested locations for Yoko have been Harmony and Geronimo for > the core ORB. If I step back and look at how other JDKs are organized > they ship the ORB as part of the JDK and provide a generic ORB. With > that in mind it seems to make sense move the core ORB and IDLJ to > Harmony. Geronimo would be able to pick up the ORB as a separate > package (or I would hope that it would be able to in order to preserve > what we've done historically.) Moving the core ORB and IDLJ to harmony would be fine by me, and subject to Harmony PMC approval, I can imagine creating a /repos/asf/harmony/standard/yoko subtree to work in. We can discuss how closely you want to be coupled to the Harmony JDK code releases, everything from completely independent, e.g. you release on your own schedule and publish separate artifacts for the JDK / Geronimo /others to consume; up to completely synchronized e.g. you release on the JDK schedule and publish only as part of the JDK, then Geronimo / others can take what they need from a combined Harmony build. I have no interest in 'empire building', as long as you continue to produce good code we are happy to work with you under any SVN path name. > Also, it is my understanding that the WebServices bindings should be > part of Java 6 and as such it would seem to make sense that they live in > Harmony as well. That said, the expertise in this area is mostly in > CXF. I'm not sure who the committers are on this portion of Yoko so it > would be great to gather some input from those folks as well. We are certainly interested in working on the webservices code, again wherever it's natural home may be. > I'll Ping Tim Ellison at Harmony since he posted earlier. I'm not sure > if he's actively looking at this list or not. I am Regards, Tim
