On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it
doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x
and
wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out.
So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0
and
we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts?
IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best
route here
and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge.
Perhaps
there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list
and here.
Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be
the
case since I have been catching up as well.
Well, it is in SVN. At the moment there are two clients in there.
The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM
configuration. I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo.
Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping
to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA
2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0
through and
through because of the gains made therein.
Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible. I think that MINA
2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a
little bit for things to shake out. IIUC, there's still discussion to
fiddle with bits of 2.0.
I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now. Its characteristics are
known and it's been around the block a few times. I am happy to do
the scut work for a 1.0 release.
Regards,
Alan
