Nabble - Cardamom - Users

IMPORTANT INFORMATION - Transition from ObjectWeb to OW2

2006-12-21T08:37:27Z

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ENCLOSED PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

Dear ObjectWeb members and partners,

ObjectWeb is about to undergo the biggest evolution since its foundation as
a consortium in 2002 by Bull, France Telecom and INRIA.

* ObjectWeb: Success and Evolution

The ObjectWeb story started somewhere around Grenoble in the Alp
mountains in the late 90's and now spans the whole planet with active
participation of members from several European countries to China to the
United States to Brazil. Over the last 5 years, our community experienced
tremendous growth, now counting over 70 corporate members, over 700
committers, thousands of individual members and contributors from many
countries in all continents. Our middleware code base counts over a hundred
projects for a total of tens of million lines of open source code.

This phase of growth brought new opportunities and new challenges. In order
to better address them, the Board of Directors decided in early 2005 to start
a task force with the mission of evaluating possible scenarios and
implementing the most suitable of them. This mission code-named
ObjectWeb v2 has been successful due to major commitment of
ObjectWebs community. As a result, it was decided to make the transition
from the current organization, namely a consortium hosted by INRIA, to a full-
fledged, non-profit independent legal entity. This new entity, whose bylaws
have been approved by ObjectWeb's Board of Directors, will be incepted in
January 2007 under the French law as a non-profit association headquartered
in Brussels, Belgium.

* Creation of OW2: a Nonprofit Legal Entity

The new organization is registered under the name OW2 Consortium or OW2
for short. This new name is the result of ObjectWeb and OrientWare joining
their forces to build a global and powerful
alliance. After extensive consultation
of the community, its rules of operation have been defined on the following
principles:

- enhanced commitment from the members through three levels of membership:
Strategic, Corporate and Individual
- deliberate market awareness with the underlying rationale to bridge the gap
between enterprise developers and users
- a refined governance model promoting increased participation from the
community, with three councils addressing technology, ecosystem
development and operations
- possibilities to create local chapters so as to facilitate international
development in a decentralized way

* In Practice: What to Expect, What Actions to Take

The ObjectWeb consortium agreement is ending on December 31, 2006. OW2
Consortium is starting on January 1, 2007. Current members are warmly invited
to join OW2 but memberships will not be automatically transferred. For this
reason, it is very important that ObjectWeb members take the necessary actions
to join the OW2 Consortium. Strategic and corporate members joining OW2 in
the first quarter of year 2007, be them former
ObjectWeb members or not, will be
deemed Co-Founders of the association.

Joining OW2 will most likely require the
involvement of your legal department. All
necessary legal documents will be available online shortly and additional
information is available on request. As CEO of the association, Cedric Thomas
will lead the operations and be your main contact
for all practical information.

No personal information will be transferred from ObjectWeb to OW2 without the
explicit consent of the user. A simplified
procedure will be put in place so that
registered members and users of the ObjectWeb
online facility can opt-in to have
their personal information transferred to the
association. Details are to be sent on
all ObjectWeb mailing lists shortly.

From now on, new membership and new project submission will no longer be
accepted by ObjectWeb. However in the short term the ObjectWeb web site and
Forge will be kept up and running, so project and
community activities be carried
on without interruption.

We want to thank you all for having made OW2 Consortium possible. We are
now counting on you to make it an even better
place for great projects. We invite
you all, developers, researchers, open source
enthusiasts from over the world, to
participate in this new and exciting endeavor.
Last but not least, we would like to
take advantage of this message to present you our most sincere season's
greetings and wish you the best for year 2007. And long live OW2!

With warmest regards,

On behalf of the Board of Directors,

Jean Pierre Laisné ObjectWeb Chairman
François Letellier ObjectWeb Executive Director

François LETELLIER
INRIA Rhône-Alpes - ObjectWeb Project Director
email: francois.letellier at inria.fr - cell: +33
(0)6 84 64 00 24 - Skype: francois.letellier
blog: http://os3g.blogspot.com/

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

Re: CCM and ORB scopes

2006-09-28T05:52:25Z

CCM comes with a container that hides access to the ORB/POA for the
component.
There is a standard API (local IDL interfaces) for the component to
access container services.
Appart from already standardised container services (transaction, event,
security and persistence), components can still access std CORBA object
services through the CCM Deployment tool either as a configuration
attribute through property files; or as a required service (receptable)
in which cas you have to provide in the assembly file (.cad) a corbaloc
url/stringified object reference ... etc.

There still a problem with the current standard to access local services
that provide 'local IDL interfaces'. The deployment tool cannot send the
object references over the wire since these local IDL! components cannot
get them through the ORB::resolve_initial_references() since components
have no access to it!
There is another CORBA Spec called 'QoS for CCM' that extends the
container to enable standard retrieval of new services...

In the meantime, CARDAMOM extended the CCMContext interface to provide
such functionality :
/**
* A CDMW-specific CCMContext with access to container service.
* Base interface for all generated ccmcif context
*/
local interface CCMContextExt : Components::CCMContext
{
/**
* Service Identifier used by get_service.
*/
typedef string ServiceId;

/**
* Exception raised by get_service when a service identifier is
unknown.
*/
exception ServiceUnavailable{};

/**
* Returns the reference of the specified service.
*
*@param identifier string that identify the service whose
reference is required.
*
*@return a reference of the specified service.
*
*@exception ServiceUnavalaible if the specified reference is
not available.
*/
Object
get_service(in ServiceId identifier)
raises (ServiceUnavailable);

};

The get_service() operation will not references for the following
services: "RootPOA", "POACurrent", "ORBPolicyManager",
"PolicyCurrent", "PICurrent".

Cheers,

Hakim

---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I have some problems understanding the separation of scopes between a CCM
>implementation (e.g Cardamom) and the ORB the CCM is based on (e.g TAO).
>
>I understand the CCM adds features/services on top of the ORBs
beneath. Is it
>true that any CORBA service provided by the ORBs is automatically
supported
>also by the CCM ?
>
>Are CCM and ORB complementary?
>
>
>Thanks for your help
>Ciao
>
>Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

[Fwd: Components interoperability]

2006-09-28T03:10:25Z

Hi,

>Hello all,
>
>can anybody enlighten me on the following issues?
>
>1. Java-CCM -- C++CCM interoperability :
>Is it possible to ensure interoperability between a component developed and 
>executed with a C++ CCM (e.g. CARDAMOM based on TAO) and a component 
>developed and executed within a Java-based CCM (e.g. openCCM based on JacORB) 

Yes. CARDAMOM CCM supports both C++ components on TAO and Java components on JacORB. Both Java and C++ components are interoperable.


>?
>
>2. CIAO-CARDAMOM Interoperability: 
>is it possible for two components, one developed and executed in the OMG 
>Corba Component implementation CARDAMOM framework, communicate with a 
>component developed and executed with CIAO, which is a Lightweight CCM 
>implementation?
We didn't test this; but this should communicate correctly using IIOP (TAO's default protocol).

>
>3. Java components hosting:
>CARDAMOM  supports C++ components. Can it also host Java corba components 
>(for example based on JacORB, which is able to interoperate with TAO)?
>is there any sort of strategy to develop Java components in the Cardamom 
>framework?
CARDAMOM already provides a Java container on JacORB. There is a demo in ProdTests/demos/demo_ccm/java.


>
>Thanks for your help
>Ciao
>
>Giovanni Scotti

Cheers,

Hakim

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

[Fwd: Cardamom components - Java clients interoperability]

2006-09-28T03:10:15Z

Hi,

CARDAMOM runs on both JacORB and TAO (OpenFusion) and both Java and C++
components are interoperable. Apart from 'multiple receptacles' not yet
yet supported, you can connect C++ receptacles to Java facets (and vice
versa) and connect C++ event sources to Java event sinks (and vice versa) .
Standard IIOP is used for communication.

Cheers,

Hakim

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

Does anybody know whether it is feasible for Java clients (using JacORB or
other Java ORBs) to invoke methods on a CCM component deployed in a Cardamom
container?

Would a common Inter-ORB Protocol Engine supported version, between the C++
ORB (e.g. TAO) and the Java ORB (e.g. JacORB), be sufficient to ensure the
interoperability in this case?

Thanks for your help
Ciao
Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

[Fwd: CARDAMOM and Security]

2006-09-28T03:10:04Z

Hi Giovanni,

Sorry for this delay, we had some admin problems ...

CARDAMOM does not support Persistence, Transaction, and Security within
the CCM Container; but the main() of the component server is left to the
application developpers and since TAO SSLIOP is a pluggable protocol,
you should be able to install it transparently to the CARDAMOM Container
by passing appropriate command line argument to ORB_init(). (I didn't
test this thougn!)

Other CARDAMOM daemons, such the Supervision server, Platform Daemon,
the Naming and Repository ... etc. are not tested with the SSLIOP
pluggin! We'll be happy to hear from if you gave it a try :-)

Cheers,

Hakim

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallo all,

COncerning security in Cardamom with TAO, in the documentation of Cardamom,
there is a statement that security is not supported.

( http://cardamom.objectweb.org/docs/CARDAMOM_PROV_Rev03.doc -> Page 14 "No
support for Persistence, Transaction and Security.").

Does this mean, that when using TAO and Cardamom together, we can not make
use of SSLIOP as described e.g. in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030829000339/doc.ece.uci.edu/TAO/Security/SSLIOP-USAGE.html
?

Or does this just mean we have to implement the secured communication
mechanism ourselves? - In addition, if this is the case, can we still make
use of Cardamom to communicate securely? - Or would we need to implement our
own middleware from scratch to replace the functionality of cardamom ?

Many thanks
Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

CARDAMOM and Security

2006-07-27T14:29:04Z

Hallo all,

COncerning security in Cardamom with TAO, in the documentation of Cardamom, there is a statement that security is not supported.

( http://cardamom.objectweb.org/docs/CARDAMOM_PROV_Rev03.doc -> Page 14 "No support for Persistence, Transaction and Security.").

Does this mean, that when using TAO and Cardamom together, we can not make use of SSLIOP as described e.g. in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030829000339/doc.ece.uci.edu/TAO/Security/SSLIOP-USAGE.html ?

Or does this just mean we have to implement the secured communication mechanism ourselves? - In addition, if this is the case, can we still make use of Cardamom to communicate securely? - Or would we need to implement our own middleware from scratch to replace the functionality of cardamom ?

Many thanks
Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

Cardamom components - Java clients interoperability

2006-07-27T14:25:35Z

Hello all,

Does anybody know whether it is feasible for Java clients (using JacORB or other Java ORBs) to invoke methods on a CCM component deployed in a Cardamom container?

Would a common Inter-ORB Protocol Engine supported version, between the C++ ORB (e.g. TAO) and the Java ORB (e.g. JacORB), be sufficient to ensure the interoperability in this case?

Thanks for your help
Ciao
Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

Components interoperability

2006-07-27T14:23:30Z

Hello all,

can anybody enlighten me on the following issues?

1. Java-CCM -- C++CCM interoperability :
Is it possible to ensure interoperability between a component developed and executed with a C++ CCM (e.g. CARDAMOM based on TAO) and a component developed and executed within a Java-based CCM (e.g. openCCM based on JacORB) ?

2. CIAO-CARDAMOM Interoperability:
is it possible for two components, one developed and executed in the OMG Corba Component implementation CARDAMOM framework, communicate with a component developed and executed with CIAO, which is a Lightweight CCM implementation?

3. Java components hosting:
CARDAMOM supports C++ components. Can it also host Java corba components (for example based on JacORB, which is able to interoperate with TAO)?
is there any sort of strategy to develop Java components in the Cardamom framework?

Thanks for your help
Ciao

Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

CCM and ORB scopes

2006-07-27T14:14:11Z

Hello all,

I have some problems understanding the separation of scopes between a CCM implementation (e.g Cardamom) and the ORB the CCM is based on (e.g TAO).

I understand the CCM adds features/services on top of the ORBs beneath. Is it true that any CORBA service provided by the ORBs is automatically supported also by the CCM ?

Are CCM and ORB complementary?

Thanks for your help
Ciao

Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

Cardamom and OMG CCM specification (complete question)

2006-07-27T14:10:45Z

Hello all,

(this complete previous question, sorry forgot to paste it all ..)

Does anybody know what version of the CORBA Component Model specification defined by the OMG is implemented by CARDAMOM?

It seems that some services defined in the OMG spec are not supported by CARDAMOM CCM container, e.g. Persistence, Transaction and Security.

Are there other feature of the OMG spec not supported by CARDAMOM?

Thanks for your help
Ciao

Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

Cardamom and OMG CCM specification

2006-07-27T14:08:31Z

Hello all,

can anybody tell me what version of the CORBA Component Model specification defined by the OMG is implemented by CARDAMOM?

Thanks for your help
Ciao

Giovanni Scotti

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the cardamom-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:cardamom-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws