mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeanfrancois Arcand <Jeanfrancois.Arc...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [About the Filter Chain] Proposals
Date Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:35 GMT


Squee wrote:
> As a user of Mina, I agree 100% on releasing 2.0 without all of these
> big changes, and pushing them down to a 3.0 release. While I'm
> perfectly willing and able to update my app code if 2.0 API changes (I
> expected as much when I chose to go with 2.0), it's still nice to be
> using fully released software, rather than pre-release-candidate
> stuff. (Not that I've had any issues at all.)

...on my side, I think releasing more with a minor release (like 2.0.1 
or something like that) will help adoption. I'm not sure about how this 
community execute release, but I'm pretty convinced that as soon as you 
say you have an official release, more peoples will go back here instead 
of hunting bears...

I think releasing using 2.x.x and more often will be beneficial. At 
least it works fine in Grizzly and it increase the buzz around the 
framework (hiding all the API deficiencies ;-))

A+

-- Jeanfrancois



> 
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <niklas@protocol7.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Mark Webb <elihusmails@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think we should focus on getting 2.0 out the door.  We have been
>>> working on it long enough and I think there are many people using it
>>> in production or near-production systems.  Once we release, we will
>>> probably get alot more feedback and can use that feedback to
>>> enhance/fix the next version.
>> Big +1. We will find areas that we would like to improve during the
>> foreseeable future (this change and ByteBuffer comes to mind).
>> Including all such changes will delay 2.0 for a long time, long enough
>> for MINA to get behind other frameworks. Having a real release out
>> will mean getting further feedback from users, so far I haven't seen a
>> lot of users requesting this change nor the ByteBuffer change. I think
>> we're too critical, the code is great. Release early, release often.
>> We do neither.
>>
>>> I would think that we should move right
>>> towards 3.0.
>> I say go work on a branch (as already suggested) and see where that leads.
>>
>> /niklas
>>

Mime
View raw message