Thanks Rick! This was fast. I'll also take a quick look... Regards, Sangjin
On Feb 1, 2008 11:17 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >>>> > >> >
