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 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:28:16 GMT
Is it ready?  You're only at M1.  What are the next milestones planned  
before you hit beta?


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

View raw message