Hi Niklas, I am sorry for the late response first of all...
The only difference between 1.0.x and 1.1.x is Java 5 support, and that's all. All minor updates must be backward-compatible with its previous minor updates. HTH, Trustin On Nov 8, 2007 7:59 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Atul Gohad wrote: > > 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 ? > > I would recommend you to look into the change history of MINA 1.1. As I > haven't look into this myself I'm afraid I can't give you any more > detailed pointers. Possible Trustin (MINA developer) can you help you > further, I've CCd him on this mail. > > /niklas > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Atul Gohad. > > > > > > On 11/2/07, Niklas Gustavsson <niklas-/[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 <niklas-/[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 > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
