On Mar 18, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Mar 18, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Mike Heath wrote:
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.
This reflects my sentiments as well. I think that it's worth
nothing that I it us my strongly held belief that everyone is
committed to a new and improved v2.0 AHC based on MINA v2.0 and that
only patches will be put in the AHC v1.0 branch.
errr
s/nothing that I it us/noting that it is/
:D
Regards,
Alan
