mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Date Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:39:20 GMT

On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> What should I use?  I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it
>> doesn't get built in in Mina.  I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x  
>> and
>> wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out.
>> So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0  
>> and
>> we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0.  Thoughts?
> IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best  
> route here
> and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge.   
> Perhaps
> there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list  
> and here.
> Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be  
> the
> case since I have been catching up as well.

Well, it is in SVN.  At the moment there are two clients in there.   
The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM  
configuration.  I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo.

> Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping
> to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA
> 2.0 sounds good too.  I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0  
> through and
> through because of the gains made therein.

Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible.   I think that MINA  
2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a  
little bit for things to shake out.  IIUC, there's still discussion to  
fiddle with bits of 2.0.

I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now.  Its characteristics are  
known and it's been around the block a few times.  I am happy to do  
the scut work for a 1.0 release.


View raw message