Without sounding like my 5 year old :), but why not? Could you give more reasons than just your opinion?
Alex On 2/19/07, Mehmet D. AKIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/21/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > The MINA ByteBuffer classes can be used without MINA for easier manipulation > of NIO ByteBuffers. For now, they belong to mina-core JAR, but we could > split it even further to the two JARs; mina-bytebuffer, mina-core, and > mina-transport-nio. By this sepration, we could remove some bad cyclic > dependencies between transport implementation and the core API and allow > users enjoy the access to the powerful byte buffer manipulation without > using MINA. > > WDYT? -1 I dont think mina should be split even further. Maybe they could be seperated for external use but Mina core should contain them too.
