mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Maarten Bosteels" <mbosteels....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:35:48 GMT
Hello,

On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:

> Is it ready?  You're only at M1.  What are the next milestones planned
> before you hit beta?


The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of
http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1]

IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we
have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could
require an API change.

According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2
but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it.

I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6)
but no show-stoppers AFAICS.

Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ?

Maarten


>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Maarten Bosteels wrote:
>
> >> Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the
> >> community
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x
> > In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap.
> >
> > Maarten
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2008 7:49 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message