mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mondain <mond...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ConnectFuture confusion
Date Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:19:18 GMT
I wouldn't say I'm a Mina expert and I didn't initially code it into Red5,
but I personally like how easy it is to write protocol handlers and I/O
filters. Oh and theres the speed..

Paul

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>wrote:

> Cool!
>
> So, you've gone through the 2.0 codebase and found it acceptable?  What
> features do you like about 2.0 that are not in 1.0 that you find compelling.
>  Just curious.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Mondain wrote:
>
>  I agree with Norman, as a Red5 core developer we depend on Mina a great
>> deal. We are certainly awaiting a release of 2.0 to go along with our
>> own forthcoming 1.0 release. Although I have no proof, I do think that
>> some
>> our own server issues are related to Mina itself and the fixes you have
>> mentioned may help us.
>>
>> Keep up the outstanding work!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Norman Maurer <norman@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>> I think it worth to break the API if it's needed to fix things , as
>>> long as you assist users while migrating...
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cent as a Mina user
>>>
>>> bye
>>> Norman
>>> 2010/3/1, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Cordialement,
>>>> Emmanuel L├ęcharny
>>>> www.nextury.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://gregoire.org/
>> http://code.google.com/p/red5/
>> http://code.google.com/p/blue5/
>>
>
>


-- 
http://gregoire.org/
http://code.google.com/p/red5/
http://code.google.com/p/blue5/

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