Alex Karasulu wrote: <snip> > 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.
I'm still working on the merge. It's a lot of work. There are a lot of very big differences between the AHC codec and the AsyncWeb codec. The AsyncWeb codec is designed to be independent of the client/server that uses it while the AHC codec is tightly coupled to the AHC client. Refactoring AHC to use the AsyncWeb codec has been challenging. It will be a while before the merge is complete. > Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping > to 2.0to 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. I'm of the opinion that we should use MINA 2.0. I think AsyncWeb will draw a lot of attention to MINA which will help us work out any kinks in MINA 2.0. MINA 2.0 also has a lot of new features that can be utilized to minimize the number of threads needed for MINA apps. -Mike
