Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned
before you hit beta?
Regards,
Alan
On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Maarten Bosteels wrote:
Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the
community
I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x
In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap.
Maarten
On Feb 9, 2008 7:49 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
