You might though want to use MINA 2.0 the move is not that big and it might be the best option.
Alex On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Sangjin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > >
