mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Date Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:16:53 GMT
I agree...I think 2.0 is the way to go...the enhancements really make it
nicer.

Jeff

Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :).  You can always work on a
> 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC
> is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA
> 2.0release is imminent.  Furthermore there's been considerable effort
> put into
> keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a
> common goal.  Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of
> the community.  We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are working
> closely with the AHC developers.  It's really great to see ramping up and
> took a bit of effort.
> 
> If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and
> I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately.  Fragmenting
> this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC just
> when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good.  Please don't
> presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0.
> Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate whatever
> it may be.  Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which
> requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 

Mime
View raw message