Or you can use Linux or Mac ;-) j/k!
Thanks for looking into that Rick. Jeff Rick McGuire wrote: > I had some time this morning, and decided to take a look at this. It > was fairly straightforward merging the changes back in to the 2.0 > sandbox branch. > There's a bit of a problem going on here with the jsps used for the > tests. In the 1.1.5-based version, there was no eol-style property set > for the jsps. This caused the strings that were returned by the tests > to use \n for line terminators, which the unit tests expected to find in > the message responses. In the 2.0 version, the eol-style is set to > native, which causes the unit tests to fail when run on a Windows > system. I was able to hack these up so they're now running cleanly, but > I'm not terribly confident these won't end up breaking again in the > future. I suspect a less encoding-specific approach is going to be > needed for validating the responses should be used. > > Rick > > > Jeff Genender wrote: >> Yes.. I think that is the best course of action. I think they are >> pretty similar since I created the mina 2 version in late December. I >> think the delta is rather small. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:34 PM, "Sangjin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Just so I understand... >>> What is the direction we're taking? Just for the terminology sake, I'll >>> call these versions >>> >>> - g-ahc-v1: Geronimo AHC based on Mina 1.1 (the one that Rick and I were >>> working on) >>> - g-ahc-v2: Geronimo AHC based on Mina trunk >>> - mina-ahc: Mina AHC that was refactored into asyncweb >>> >>> Are we migrating changes from g-ahc-v1 to g-ahc-v2 first and will try to >>> migrate them again from g-ahc-v2 to mina-ahc? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sangjin >>> >>> >>> On Jan 30, 2008 6:36 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 30, 2008 1:49 PM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Being that its in the sandbox...anything goes. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> However...with that said...lets see what pans out here at Mina. I >>>>> would >>>>> certainly consider the delta now before we get 3 diverse versions ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Yes the preferred version is Mina 2.x. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Indeed! We might want to first make sure the two Geronimo forks are >>>> merged >>>> and using MINA 2.0. Meaning all the features and fixes in the one >>>> based >>>> on >>>> MINA 1.1.x are put into the one based on MINA 2.0-M1. >>>> >>>> That might bring the consolidated Geronimo fork closer to the MINA >>>> version >>>> in Asyncweb trunk. Then we can focus on how to merge these two >>>> together? >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>
