Agreed...if we can split the artifacts, then that is fine with me. Jeff
Mike Heath wrote: > Jeff Genender wrote: >> I would concur with you on this. I think a sub-project of its own is >> good since it can be used as a standalone API (with a dependency on Mina >> of course). I would recommend that this API be a separate artifact from >> asyncweb as I think we want the client to be capable of being slit off >> from the server (for obvious reasons). > > Certainly if you want an HTTP client, it's unlikely that you would want > an HTTP server. This, of course, makes sense. I would imagine, > however, that there are going to be a lot of similarities between the > client and server code (header parsing, cookies support, the many > caching options of HTTP/1.1, etc.). That's why I was thinking making it > part of AsyncWeb would be a good idea. I don't think the client and > server should be distributed in the same artifact either. However, I > believe there's a lot to be gained by keeping the the HTTP client and > server close together. > > WDYT? > > -Mike
