Alex Karasulu wrote: > 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?
If AHC is working fine and is tested with MINA 1.1 in it's current state, I don't see any point to pushing to MINA 2.0 just for the sake of moving to MINA 2.0. If AHC has been tested and working well, I don't think we should disrupt that. If we move forward with a new client API as we've been discussing, this new implementation must be based on MINA 2.0 because the AsyncWeb codec is MINA 2.0 based. -Mike
