On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.


Very well I was looking for a compromise here but I don't have the time or
wattage to keep discussing this.  I spent a lot of time and energy to try to
get you guys here to prevent a rift with these forks that would eventually
hurt everyone in terms of productivity.

Regardless just knowing that people are looking at the big picture for a
unified Asyncweb is enough for me to trust that our eyes are on the future
as well as the now.  I trust that you all value the proper progression of
this project so there's no reason for me to worry about it.

Alex

Reply via email to