Hello, On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned > before you hit beta? The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1] IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could require an API change. According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2 but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it. I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6) but no show-stoppers AFAICS. Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ? Maarten > > > 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 > >> > >
