On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:27 -0400 Jeanfrancois Arcand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Salut, > Salut, I'll try to make a message shorter than two politician wannabees ;)
Bienvenue ! comments inline. > after weeks of delay(ss), I'm back :-) Last time we discussed > possible collaboration between the two frameworks. I've proposed the > idea to my colleagues and as expected, every body were on the > defense :-) The Sun-Apache collaboration hasn't always working really > well over the last couple of years, and I suspect this didn't > helped ;-). Let's no just discuss that here.... > > So, one of the proposition was to merge the two projects. I don't > think that one can happens :-) And the license isn't yet matching, > although I'm trying to have Apache 2 license support in Grizzly > (actually I'm not trying, it's one task for our new Grizzly project > lead :-)). Would be very interesting because we could share code directly, but it's Sun money and workforce, so it's up to Sun. > > So my little proposal is the following. I would like to learn MINA > and be involved as an individual contributor. One thing that I would > like to explore is have MINA implemented on top of Grizzly, similar > to MINA running on top of APR. What the MINA community will gain with > that? Little except the feedback I will give....but also it will > means that application that wants to use Grizzly low level API can > combine them with MINA high level API. I know it's a bit early if you didn't dug much in mina code. But do you think about porting the mina codec facilities to grizzly (mean no filter) or implements a mina transport using grizzly (like nio, apr) ? > > Maybe nobody will want to do that, but at least it will gives me a > chance to learn MINA and comes with comments. It may eventually > brings the two community together and share on the low level works > (directly or just the experience). Maybe not. Still I think that > starting small cannot hurt any community. I will for sure gives > feedback on performance, although we might discover than the current > version of MINA is faster than Grizzly (naaa maybe :-)). Or perhaps it'll bridge the communities on the high level topic (codec/parser implementations). > > What peoples thinks? In any case, I will start looking at the design, > something I've refrain myself before (maybe I should have looked, as > peoples always tell me it quite trivial to write MINA applications!)). > For have tested the two, I think it's much easier to do a protocol codec using mina than grizzly but it's perhaps simply because I'm using the first one since the beginning :) Looking at grizzly 2.0 roadmap, improvement are planned on the high level API. I think we can find convergence on this topic too. > A+ > > -- Jeanfrancois Bonne nuit, Julien
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
