Hi! +1 for M4 soon and before merging back Big changes tend to have big bugs, so these changes have to be well tested.
Steve > Emmanuel Lecharny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > Hi guys, > > what about releasing a 2.0.0-M4 soon ? As I've worked those last few > weeks on MINA in order to get it used in Directory, and as it's a > success so far (works great, performances are better - around 10% speed > increas -), I may need a release to get what I have worked on be put > back in Directory trunk. > > Also I think we fixed some important bugs, plus done some cleaning and > javadoced a bit more the code. > > So wdyt ? > > Also : there are a few more issues associated with 2.0.0-M4, and I > think > we can try to fix some of them, as I can wait a few days or even a > couple of weeks before merging my own code in Directory. > > I also think it would be a good idea to define a new roadmap, injecting > into it most of the discussion and suggestions we have had those last > two monts. Namely : > - Removing of MessageSent > - Chain refactoring > - Moving from autoextensible IoBuffer to something more versatile and > with a zero-copy strategy > - Merging SessionCreate and SessionOpened events > - Rethinking the preAdd/PostAdd and preRemove/postRemove methods > - Checking the SSL Filter to see if it should be a filter > - Refactoring the handler to make it a Filter > - Adding a simpler ProtocolCodec Filter > - Get rid of mandatory statistics > - Suppress the double call to Write() done to get the number of sent > messages > - Define more precisely the Future we are using (why don't we inherit > from the java 5 Future<V> class ?) > - and may be more. > > I think we also have to determinate if we should do all that for 2.0, > or > if we must release 2.0 asap, and start a 3.0 branch. We already have > discussed extensively about this dilemma,without stating a position, > and > I can't see how we can go without a vote. > > Again, wdyt ? > > Thanks ! > > PS: Even if it was not a piece of cake, MINA 2 migration in ADS went > pretty smooth, considering that we have 5 servers using it (LDAP, NTP, > KERBEROS, DNS, DHCP, plus the internal replication system). As I said, > performance is better. I must admit that I spent more time to play with > MINA's internal than to do the migration (3 weeks to compare with the 3 > days it took me to migrate). I run the server with a small load test (1 > million request done, with many clients), and everything went fine. I > will do a bigger tests in the next few weeks, trying to make the server > run a couple of days, being hammered by thousands of requests per > second :) > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org >
