mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [AsyncHttpClient] On bringing the code bases and communities together
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:17:45 GMT
Or you can use Linux or Mac ;-)


Thanks for looking into that Rick.


Rick McGuire wrote:
> 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.
> Rick
> 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