Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Yet another list to subscribe to... ;-) --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Jeff? Jeff? On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. I know that. You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. Makes sense? Yep, thanks for the information. On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, > > Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains > > AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. > > I know that. > > You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient > code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to > some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I > wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. > > Makes sense? Yep, thanks for the information. On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Trustin Lee wrote: > > He made some big changes in > > Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original > > contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will > > migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. > > Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) > > On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the > > > cross post. > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in > > > > it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted > > > > to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a > > > > home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are > > > > interested. > > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow > > > > >> us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just > > > > >> place a dependency on it in their plugins > > > > > > > > > > Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under > > > > > components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can > > > > > then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a > > > > > combination of 2 and 3. > > > > > > > > > > --kevan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -Donald > > > > >> > > > > >> Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > >>> On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > > There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, > > > > Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the > > > > sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from > > > > sandbox into trunk. > > > > > > > > There are a couple options as to where it could reside - > > > > 1) under server/trunk/applications > > > > 2) under server/trunk/plugins > > > > 3) under geronimo/components/ > > > > > > > > What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 > > > > release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. > > > > >>> Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. > > > > >>> There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). > > > > >>> The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, > > > > >>> etc. > > > > >>> At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc > > > > >>> (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... > > > > >>> --kevan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > > -- > > http://gleamynode.net/ > > -- > > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 > > > -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in > it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted > to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a > home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are > interested. > > On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > >> #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow > >> us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just > >> place a dependency on it in their plugins > > > > Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... > > > > I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under > > components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can > > then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a > > combination of 2 and 3. > > > > --kevan > > > > > >> > >> > >> -Donald > >> > >> Kevan Miller wrote: > >>> On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, > Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the > sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from > sandbox into trunk. > > There are a couple options as to where it could reside - > 1) under server/trunk/applications > 2) under server/trunk/plugins > 3) under geronimo/components/ > > What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 > release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. > >>> Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. > >>> There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). > >>> The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, > >>> etc. > >>> At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc > >>> (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... > >>> --kevan > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
AsyncHttpClient is an implementation of HTTP client functionality based on Apache Mina. It does non-blocking I/O, and shows great scalability and performance characteristic. The APIs are quite easy to use with a strong focus on concurrent programming, employing futures and completion-service like result handing. It would be a great companion piece for Geronimo to use in web apps. My 2 cents... Thanks, Sangjin On Jan 8, 2008 10:09 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Gianny Damour wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Is it actually used in Geronimo? If not, then I would prefer this > > utility to be say part of http-client. > > Well, Geronimo wouldn't be using code out of sandbox, but that's > potentially a point-in-time/chicken-and-egg issue. > > I think it would be useful to hear some details about the > AsyncHttpClient and how it differs from HTTP Client. My understanding > is that it's Mina-based and api-wise is easier to use than the HTTP > client. Somebody willing to fill in with some more detailed info? > > --kevan > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
#2 sounds good (with #3 later if someone requests it.) Is there any due diligence work to complete (besides adding License/Notice files to the jar and checking headers) before we move it over, given Jeff did most of the work? -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Gianny Damour wrote: Hi, Is it actually used in Geronimo? If not, then I would prefer this utility to be say part of http-client. Well, Geronimo wouldn't be using code out of sandbox, but that's potentially a point-in-time/chicken-and-egg issue. I think it would be useful to hear some details about the AsyncHttpClient and how it differs from HTTP Client. My understanding is that it's Mina-based and api-wise is easier to use than the HTTP client. Somebody willing to fill in with some more detailed info? --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
#3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Hi, Is it actually used in Geronimo? If not, then I would prefer this utility to be say part of http-client. Thanks, Gianny On 06/01/2008, at 6:45 AM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. -Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
AHC is a framework that allows appllications that need to assemble http requests from a variety of other http sources. Rather than have to serialize the requests or spin off a thread for each request, this interface uses the Mina NIO framework to perform each of the requests asynchronously. Prasad wrote a sample benchmark application to test this out: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/samples/trunk/samples/async-http The benchmark results are fairly impressive. This can provide some major throughput improvements to these types of applications. Jacek Laskowski wrote: On Jan 5, 2008 8:45 PM, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. Could you describe a little what AHC is for? Without it I'm for moving it to trunk too *iff* it builds and others see fit for it in Geronimo. Jacek
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 5, 2008 8:45 PM, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and > others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd > like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. Could you describe a little what AHC is for? Without it I'm for moving it to trunk too *iff* it builds and others see fit for it in Geronimo. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
[DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. -Donald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
