mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edouard De Oliveira <doe_wan...@yahoo.fr>
Subject Re : ConnectFuture confusion
Date Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:27:32 GMT
There are months i'm thinking the same without daring to say so ...
The problem is that 1.x branches have been abandonned long time ago and much people are indeed
waiting for the release of this 2.0
how bad would it be to release it for the early adopters with a 'use it at your own risk'
warning and invite new comers to wait for a 3.0 preview ?
would it be acceptable for the community to say that we won't support it extensively as our
efforts will be concentrated on 3.0 ?

Maybe it's the right time to shake the anthill or maybe not ...
my 2 cents

 Cordialement, Regards,
-Edouard De Oliveira-

----- Message d'origine ----
De : Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
À : dev@mina.apache.org
Envoyé le : Lun 1 Mars 2010, 18 h 45 min 02 s
Objet : Re: ConnectFuture confusion

On 3/1/10 6:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>> On 3/1/10 6:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/10 4:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Ashish wrote:
>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>> Unless it breaks the system, i would say lets not loose our sleep
over this.
>>>>> While I share the same opinion about the IoFuture hierarchy as you I
have the same sentiments as Ashish.
>>>> I'm afraid that we might have to fix the issue in 2.0.... Trust me, i'm not
pleased with this !
>>> Fixing a bug is one thing.  Reorganizing a code base a few days after an attempted
vote on its initial release is another.
>> I know :/ This is why I created a branch, in a desesperate attempt to get rid of
all those futures, instead of doing that in trunk. Now, it was the end of a long and painful
week, chasing many bugs in many places, and I was turning in circle.
>> I *wish* we can fix the bug, without having to rewrite this part.
> Another alternative is to totally abandon 2.x.  It was never officially released.  Just
leave it as it is and work on the new 2.x
I'm also considering this option...

Emmanuel Lécharny


View raw message