mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [AsyncHttpClient] On bringing the code bases and communities together
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:35:55 GMT
I had some time this morning, and decided to take a look at this.  It 
was fairly straightforward merging the changes back in to the 2.0 
sandbox branch. 

There's a bit of a problem going on here with the jsps used for the 
tests.  In the 1.1.5-based version, there was no eol-style property set 
for the jsps.  This caused the strings that were returned by the tests 
to use \n for line terminators, which the unit tests expected to find in 
the message responses.  In the 2.0 version, the eol-style is set to 
native, which causes the unit tests to fail when run on a Windows 
system.  I was able to hack these up so they're now running cleanly, but 
I'm not terribly confident these won't end up breaking again in the 
future.  I suspect a less encoding-specific approach is going to be 
needed for validating the responses should be used.


Jeff Genender wrote:
> Yes.. I think that is the best course of action.  I think they are 
> pretty similar since I created the mina 2 version in late December.  I 
> think the delta is rather small.
> Jeff
> On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:34 PM, "Sangjin Lee" <sjlee0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just so I understand...
>> What is the direction we're taking?  Just for the terminology sake, I'll
>> call these versions
>> - g-ahc-v1: Geronimo AHC based on Mina 1.1 (the one that Rick and I were
>> working on)
>> - g-ahc-v2: Geronimo AHC based on Mina trunk
>> - mina-ahc: Mina AHC that was refactored into asyncweb
>> Are we migrating changes from g-ahc-v1 to g-ahc-v2 first and will try to
>> migrate them again from g-ahc-v2 to mina-ahc?
>> Thanks,
>> Sangjin
>> On Jan 30, 2008 6:36 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2008 1:49 PM, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Being that its in the sandbox...anything goes. ;-)
>>>> However...with that said...lets see what pans out here at Mina.  I 
>>>> would
>>>> certainly consider the delta now before we get 3 diverse versions ;-)
>>>> Yes the preferred version is Mina 2.x.
>>> Indeed! We might want to first make sure the two Geronimo forks are 
>>> merged
>>> and using MINA 2.0.  Meaning all the features and fixes in the one 
>>> based
>>> on
>>> MINA 1.1.x are put into the one based on MINA 2.0-M1.
>>> That might bring the consolidated Geronimo fork closer to the MINA 
>>> version
>>> in Asyncweb trunk.  Then we can focus on how to merge these two 
>>> together?
>>> Alex

View raw message