I agree...I think 2.0 is the way to go...the enhancements really make it nicer.
Jeff Alex Karasulu wrote: > On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :). You can always work on a > 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC > is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA > 2.0release is imminent. Furthermore there's been considerable effort > put into > keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a > common goal. Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of > the community. We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are working > closely with the AHC developers. It's really great to see ramping up and > took a bit of effort. > > If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and > I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately. Fragmenting > this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC just > when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good. Please don't > presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0. > Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate whatever > it may be. Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which > requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly? > > Thanks, > Alex >
