Mike Heath wrote: > I've been looking into merging > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/async-http-client-mina2/ > into http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/asyncweb/trunk/client/ and I'm > trying to figure out the best way to proceed. Here are some of the pain > points I see: > - The only redeeming quality about the AsyncWeb client is that it uses > the AsyncWeb codec. > - There are a few things in AHC that duplicate functionality already > available in MINA (timeouts for example)
I think this timeout is a different timeout in implementation...that is unless this was added to 2.0, then duplication may be correct. Its a response timeout, not socket timeout...I think thats different. > - The AHC codec and the AsycnWeb codec have diverged quite a bit. > > To resolve these pain points, here is how I would like to proceed. I > would like to copy the AHC async-http-client-mina2 code as is into the > AsyncWeb client repository. Because AHC and AsyncWeb client use > different package names, there shouldn't be any conflicts doing this. > Once that is done, we can look at removing the AHC code that > reimplements functionality available in MINA. As long as all the tests > are passing, we should be fine and if there are gaps in testing, we > should fill those. > > Once that is done, we can look at refactoring the AHC code base to use > the AsyncWeb codec while at the same time, make sure that the AsyncWeb > codec isn't missing any functionality that is implemented in AHC. > > I think at this point, we can rename the AHC packages and move it over > top the current AsyncWeb client. Am I missing anything in AsyncWeb > client that needs to merged into AHC? It's only four classes and I > didn't see anything in there that isn't available in AHC. > > Before going ahead and doing this, I wanted to know what everyone else > thinks of this plan. Does anyone else have a different idea as to how > best to undertake this merge? Am I missing anything? > I like the plan...seems like a good way to go. > -Mike > > > > Sangjin Lee wrote: >> Yeah I believe so (as far as I can tell). It was more or less a >> straightforward porting, so there might be interesting and subtle behavior >> changes we may need to look at. But it should be a good solid baseline. >> Thanks, >> Sangjin >> >> >> On Feb 4, 2008 2:50 PM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> Rick, >>> >>> Does >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/async-http-client-mina2/ >>> contain all the bug fixes and latest features of AsyncHttpClient? Can >>> we use this to merge the changes over to the client under MINA? >>> >>> -Mike >>> >>> <snip> >>>
