mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Date Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:49:33 GMT
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?


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message