Re: org.omg

[Sascha Brawer]

Brian Jones <address@hidden> wrote on Sun, 6 Oct 2002 10:20:57 -0400:

>I didn't think the JDK actually provided an ORB.  To my knowledge
>everyone goes to a vendor for an ORB implementation.  My lack of
>actually using CORBA from Java is showing here.

It did not provide one in the past.  Starting with Sun J2SE 1.3, AFAIK,
there was a simple ORB included.  Their ORB improved a lot with J2SE 1.4,
although the Sun implementation still does not support everything from
the CORBA specification.

See http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/api/org/omg/CORBA/doc-files/
compliance.html for details.


Mark Wielaard <address@hidden> writes:

> Note that this does not give explicit permission to make and distribute
> changes (like fixing bugs, adding javadoc, removing unneeded classes,
> etc).

What would be a reason for us to modify code whose shape is exactly
prescribed by a standard? From what I understand, the reason for the OMG
to distribute the sources is to ensure interoperability.


The "readme.txt" in the OMG distro says:

> Files which are not so marked [as dummy implementations to allow compilation
> of the code] shall be provided by conformant products
> "as is".  Vendors may not add or subtract functionality from them
> (though of course things such as comments, formal parameter names, etc.
> which do not change functionality may be modified.)

So, adding javadoc should be acceptable use, or am I misunderstanding this?

Could we include the OMG code for now, and replace it in case we should
ever need to deviate from the standard?

-- Sascha
   brawer at acm.org, http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~brawer