BTW, Sangjin, did you get any response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] for your new account? If you didn't get one, please let me know.
2008-03-06 (목), 10:39 -0500, Alex Karasulu 쓰시길: > This is your specific situation right? I don't want to leave you hanging > but we're really jumping head over heels to make one user comfortable. I > think we paved the road for you to be able to achieve what you need by > granting you karma to work directly on this code base. We're open but need > you to provide a little bit of leeway so we can get everyone on the same > base eventually. This move to M2 is a small step in that direction and will > have all the Asyncweb modules which include this client on the same MINA > dependency. > > See if you can push back a little to convince your employer of the > benefits. At the end of the day, aligning this this community will be as > good for you and your employer as it will be for all of us. Let's not be > myopic and loose out on gains in the future. Can you try to push this for > the project? > > Alex > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Sangjin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That might be a problem for us... We're about to use AHC (which is based > > on > > mina 1.1.x) in a production environment. Switching to mina 2.0 now would > > set us back in terms of invested time (testing, regression, etc.)... If > > at > > all possible, it would be great if we could support the current AHC as is, > > while continuing the work on rewriting the client. Thoughts? > > Regards, > > Sangjin > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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.xover > > > > > 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 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
