I think you missed it again. See here: > > > 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.
They don't want to fork it at Geronimo but would prefer it to find a home that is more fitting. http-client was mentioned. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >
