On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Mike Heath 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?
This seems like a good idea. I have some questions.
When we cut a release of this code, what version will it be? What will
be its Maven group and artifact id?
What about the other AsyncWeb client? It looks like people are
modifying that quite heavily. Are we going to need to do a pre-2.0
release of that as well?
Regards,
Alan
