If we were to move all the codecs over to MINA from Directory you'd have to bring over several libraries as well like shared-xxxx. Might be a bit overwhelming.
I see mina as a good breeding ground for protocol projects that may gain enough community to eventually bud off. I see protocol designers as our users but this move would make them our committers. But it would bring more people to mina too so I'm internally torn by this. Alex On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>wrote: > > That's a good old debate... >> Does de codec is part of the project (ADS, Asyncweb, ...) or can be >> placed in some MINA's common codec. >> >> > Well, it doesn't matter to much. In my mind, the idea is to design codec, > and then project can decide to use them, or not. But for those who start a > new project using one of the existing codec (for instance, we see many > people wanting to write a XMPP server), then it can help them. The very same > thing for HTTP. > > Now, I don't want to strip codecs out of asyncweb, or ADS. It's just the > people from the project to decide whether they want to use the available > codec, or not. A big mistake was done with Asyncweb I think, and we should > not repeat the same pattern... > >> I think as soon we redo the codec architecture for use only streams & >> ByteBuffer, we can restart the debate :) >> >> > yup. I just want to drop ideas while they are still in my head... > >> Julien >> >> > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
