Hey,
Alex just posted some X-post information to MINA and Geronimo, just to
inform MINA that Geronimo want to get Jeff's work out from Sandbox.
What are all the next mails about ? I see mentions of a kind of roadmap
for geronimo, and some other informations about asynchweb which is
totally a different beast... I think some context has been added, and
not through mails...
Any heads up ?
Trustin Lee wrote:
What's important is actually not where to host it or whether to fork
or not - Jeff, the main contributor of the project, and the MINA team
already decided to host it under the MINA trunk and Jeff wants to keep
working on here with AHC. So I think Jeff will take care of the
Geronimo discussion properly. I also think it's OK even if they do
whatever they want to do with G sandbox as long as Jeff will keep
working here, which is much more reasonable than hosting it under
HttpComponent project or Geronimo trunk. Jeff should explain this to
the Geronimo team and I believe he already did very enough as a person
who wants to host it here.
Trustin
On Jan 10, 2008 8:27 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
