Hello Niklas,

When you say minor changes might be required to use Mina 1.1.2, are they
w.r.t. FTP Server functionality, or w.r.t. maven / build scripts so as to
package the upward versions? If they are w.r.t FTP Server functionality,
then any specific areas that need to be aware of ?

Thanks and Regards,
Atul Gohad.


On 11/2/07, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Atul Gohad wrote:
> > Hello Niklas / All,
> >
> > Thanks on the information. Have further 2 points to be clarified:
> >
> >
> > 1. Understanding is that all of the Mina 1.1.* versions are for Java
> > 5.0compatibility, so then is Mina
> > 1.0.7 equivalent of Mina 1.1.4?
>
> No, I believe that there has been additional improvements to the 1.1
> branch. As we try to maintain a Java 1.4 compatibility, we'll remain on
> the 1.0 branch for now.
>
> > 2. Is it safe to assume that Mina 1.1.2 will be supported?
>
> I haven't tried so I won't know for sure. I'm guessing (very) minor
> updates on our end might be needed.
>
> > Additionally what part of Apache FTP Server funtionality needs to be
> > regressed so as to confirm compatibility with the latest of Mina? Any
> > information on specific test cases to be executed / areas to look into
> will
> > be helpful.
>
> I usually try to run our JUnit tests, they should give a fair workaround
> for the server. Then, different FTP clients work in different ways,
> which causes different behaviors on the server. But, over time we try to
> improve our tests by adding these type of cases as well.
>
> /niklas
>
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Atul Gohad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 31, 2007 2:22 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>  Atul Gohad wrote:
> >>> Hi Niklas / all ,
> >>>
> >>> Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case
> we
> >> are
> >>> using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
> >>>
> >>> I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the
> impact
> >>> that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather
> >> that
> >>> the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
> >>> should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me
> >> know if
> >>> my understanding is wrong.
> >>  Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
> >> just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
> >> tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
> >>
> >> /niklas
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Reply via email to