Jeff Genender wrote:
I would concur with you on this. I think a sub-project of its own is good since it can be used as a standalone API (with a dependency on Mina of course). I would recommend that this API be a separate artifact from asyncweb as I think we want the client to be capable of being slit off from the server (for obvious reasons).
Certainly if you want an HTTP client, it's unlikely that you would want an HTTP server. This, of course, makes sense. I would imagine, however, that there are going to be a lot of similarities between the client and server code (header parsing, cookies support, the many caching options of HTTP/1.1, etc.). That's why I was thinking making it part of AsyncWeb would be a good idea. I don't think the client and server should be distributed in the same artifact either. However, I believe there's a lot to be gained by keeping the the HTTP client and server close together.
WDYT? -Mike
