Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Mike Heath wrote: > >> Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Mike Heath wrote: >>> >>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Now you're asking hard questions that I'm not sure I have a good answer >>>> for. I think this will take some discussing. >>>> >>>> To get the discussion started, I'll suggest that for AHC we use the >>>> Maven group 'org.apache.asyncweb' and for the artifact id we use 'ahc'. >>>> For the version, how about 1.0? >>>> >>>> For AsyncWeb client, I think we should use the group >>>> 'org.apache.asyncweb' and the artifact id 'client'. >>> >>> Seems good to me. >>> >>> What about the work that's currently being done on the "old" asyncweb >>> client? What are the plans for that? I ask about this because it looks >>> like someone is actively working on it. Will we also have a 1.0 release >>> of org.apache.asyncweb:client? >> >> I think we should move the "old" asyncweb client (a.k.a. AHC) over to a >> branch in AsyncWeb and continue to maintain it there. > > Was this ever released?
I was referring to the Geronimo sandbox AHC so no I don't think that's ever been released. >> I think we should release all of AsyncWeb (client, server, codec, >> extras) together as a 1.0 release. Because both client and server >> depend heavily on AsyncWeb commons, this makes sense, IMO. > > When you speak of client, do you mean the "old" one or the "Geronimo" one? When I say 'client' I'm referring to the new. >> In the AsyncWeb client project, I would like to move to the API that we >> proposed earlier and was discussed on the mailing list. Having code >> that everyone can see and tinker with will make it easier to facilitate >> discussion. It's going to take a lot of work and creativity to come up >> with an API that can accomplish all the things we've been discussing as >> well as remain consistent between the client and server sides of >> AsyncWeb. > > Good idea. Please see an earlier thread that was started about how we > can proceed on this. > >> So to summarize: >> - We move AHC from Geronimo sandbox to a branch in AsyncWeb and >> maintain it from there (I would like to see an AHC release soon too.) >> - For AHC we use the group name o.a.asyncweb, the artifact id 'ahc' and >> the version 1.0 >> - For the new AsyncWeb client we use the group name o.a.asyncweb and >> the artifact id 'client' this will also have the version number '1.0' >> and will be released with the collective AsyncWeb project. > > I think that we should make it version 2.0. It fits nicely with its > MINA 2.0 ties and it more clearly delineates it from the 1.0 release > that we're proposing. IMO, simply renaming the artifact id, while still > a good idea, is not enough to differentiate the new API. I personally would be fine with this but I don't know how the AsyncWeb server guys would feel about releasing AsyncWeb server under 2.0 without it having a previous release. It does fit well with the MINA 2.0 release. >> - I'll move the new client API we've been discussing into AsyncWeb >> client so we start developing it and continue discussing it > > Please just move the interfaces, per the other discussion on how to > proceed, so the community can start submitting examples based on the use > cases. I'll post the interfaces to my sandbox for now and we can decide on a permanent home later. > It would be good if the HttpConnector was an HttpConnectionFactory w/out > the HttpClient factory methods as we discussed. If you still do not > agree then I think it's best that we wait until we reach a consensus on > these far reaching changes. I believe that I am still waiting for your > reply on a number of issues no that old thread. That's how it looks right now. Again, great minds think alike. :) >> Is everyone ok if we move forward with this plan? Do we need to call >> for a vote? > > Wait 72 hours for the discussion to sink in and then call a vote. Ok. -Mike
