OK, thanks...  I like the suggestion.  +1 from me. :)
Sangjin

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sangjin Lee wrote:
> > That sounds like a good idea.  Just so I understand, your proposal is to
> > move the existing AHC in the Geronimo sandbox based on mina 1.1.x over
> to
> > asyncweb under a branch and keep up the maintenance and support on it,
> > right?
> > Thanks,
> > Sangjin
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
>
> -Mike
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Sangjin Lee wrote:
> >>> I would also like to see asyncweb make progress as quickly as
> possible,
> >> and
> >>> I'd like to contribute to that effect as well.  As Mike pointed out in
> a
> >>> different thread, however, there are some challenges to this.  It's
> >> looking
> >>> more likely that this is not going to be a simple "merge" of code but
> >>> substantial rework.  I think part of it stems from the fact that the
> old
> >> AHC
> >>> relies on its own codec (based on mina 1.1.x) and the asyncweb already
> >> has a
> >>> good codec that's completely different from AHC's.
> >>> We do have an immediate need to use AHC *now*, and critical bug fixes
> >> need
> >>> to happen, as we're using it right now.  But we're making a conscious
> >> effort
> >>> to limit the changes to mostly bug fixes, and we're trying to
> propagate
> >> the
> >>> changes to asyncweb whenever it is applicable.  Those are the things
> >> we're
> >>> doing (or trying to do) to make sure things don't diverge or get out
> of
> >>> hand.
> >> Why don't we put AHC in a branch in the AsyncWeb Subversion repository?
> >>  This way AHC can continue using its own codec and we can support and
> >> maintain it without going through a lot of work.  Once it gets
> >> stabilized we could even cut a release.
> >>
> >> In the mean time, we can continue working toward a revised "2.0" client
> >> that uses the AsyncWeb codec.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> I am in agreement as well.  I would like to see this merge happen
> >> quickly
> >>>> so
> >>>> the users see progress and there's no longer any need to keep the G
> >> branch
> >>>> alive.  Someone said to me you need to get cookin in the kitchen when
> >> the
> >>>> guests arrive :).  Then we can just start releasing some milestones
> >> that
> >>>> people can use and we can track/patch etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's nice now that MINA 2.0-m1 is out.  This means we can release an
> >>>> Asyncweb milestone as a whole.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also another thing I want people to think about is that this project
> is
> >>>> one
> >>>> unit rather than just a client.  There's a server in there  too and
> we
> >> can
> >>>> release it together.  The community around this is coming together
> fast
> >>>> and
> >>>> that's just great which means there's a good potential for graduating
> >> this
> >>>> project eventually.
> >>>>
> >>>> These are my hopes for Asyncweb.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree with Alan...I understood that the G version was going away
> now
> >>>>> that we built community over here on this.  Comments?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alan Cabrera wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 1, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> AsyncHttpClient was changed w/ the last checkin on 2/26 and now
> the
> >>>>>>> build is broken.
> >>>>>> I looked at the actual changes.  I'm just trying to grok the
> changes
> >>>>>> because I realize that I am new here.  It seems that the "old"
> >>>>>> AsyncHttpClient is still evolving?  How does this fit in with the
> >>>> plans
> >>>>>> for the "old" AsyncHttpClient, the "new" Geronimo AsyncHttpClient,
> >> and
> >>>>>> the new API that's currently in discussion?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I had thought, maybe naively, that we were going to roll the "old"
> >> two
> >>>>>> into the new one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Alan
> >>
> >
>
>

Reply via email to