Ugg...yeah...we need to get that team looking at our stuff. The problem is that the large delta is where the problem is going to be. I would like to see the delta be made and brought over here and have them work over here.
Jeff Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > >
