Hi !
Niklas Therning wrote:
Trustin Lee wrote:
Okay. Then it's time for restructuring. (Excited :) We have
ftpserver, AHC and Asyncweb. FtpServer and AsyncWeb are under
sandbox, but I think FtpServer is mature enough to bring it up to the
subproject right away because Niklas G is working on the project and
Niclas Hedman told me it's pretty mature project.
So... I'd like to suggest the following directory structure:
/ - mina - trunk
- tags
- branches
- ahc - trunk
- tags
- branches
- ftpserver - trunk
- tags
- branches
Does it make sense, or would you suggest better structure?
I would add some more subprojects :
- http-codec
- tags
- branches
- trunk
(any codec as well)
and I also think it's time to get asyncweb out of sandbox. Sandbox is
supposed to be a place where we do experiments, or personal stuff. If
Alex wants to work on asyncweb, it may be time to 'wake up' the project
and put it back to trunk.
It makes sense I think! Would we still keep codec implementations in
subprojects under mina/ (like filter-codec-http)?
I think that each codec should have its own sub-project, with its own
versioning scheme. There is no reason why it should depend on MINA in
any way, except through a dependency.
This is a dangerous approach which will be a real problem when
protocol's codecs will flourish, as you will have difficult time
synchronizing all of them when you will want to release a new MINA version.
I think that's a nice separation. It would be great if the codec parts
of ftpserver could be separated from its use in ftpserver and become
filter-codec-ftp. Is that doable?
Sure !
I think it would be very cool if MINA could be a repository for codec
implementations like this and I think that has been your intention
from the very start Trustin, right? We (Trillian AB) would be willing
to contribute initial (and in some areas incomplete) codec
implementations for POP3, SMTP and IMAP. I know there are others out
there using MINA for various types of mail servers and clients.
Together we could build complete and very usable implementations for
these protocols.
Codecs should be seen as plugins, and should have there own life, and
own versioning scheme.
Does it make sense to you, guys ?
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
