Jeff? Jeff?
On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like
to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work
will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and
I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to
the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better
road map for this.
Trustin
On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects.
Anyways,
Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains
AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants.
I know that.
You obviously missed why I posted this information. The
AsyncHttpClient
code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked
over to
some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for
it. I
wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that
stuff.
Makes sense?
Yep, thanks for the information.
On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trustin Lee wrote:
He made some big changes in
Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original
contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will
migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess.
Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-)
On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw.
Excuse the
cross post.
Alex
On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in
it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy
wanted
to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains
without a
home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are
interested.
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
#3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would
allow
us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to
just
place a dependency on it in their plugins....
Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply...
I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under
components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can
then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a
combination of 2 and 3.
--kevan
-Donald
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick,
Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in
the
sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from
sandbox into trunk.
There are a couple options as to where it could reside -
1) under server/trunk/applications
2) under server/trunk/plugins
3) under geronimo/components/
What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our
2.1
release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows.
Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk.
There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/
ahc).
The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site,
jira,
etc.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/
ahc
(or some more descriptive name), but could probably be
swayed...
--kevan
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
