Hi > Just so I understand... > What is the direction we're taking? Just for the terminology sake, I'll > call these versions > > - g-ahc-v1: Geronimo AHC based on Mina 1.1 (the one that Rick and I were > working on). > - g-ahc-v2: Geronimo AHC based on Mina trunk > - mina-ahc: Mina AHC that was refactored into asyncweb > > Are we migrating changes from g-ahc-v1 to g-ahc-v2 first and will try to > migrate them again from g-ahc-v2 to mina-ahc?
I think it's a good way, the first thing is probably to freeze the g-ahc-v1 for avoid more porting. The main problem for migrate to mina-ahc is the new Asynweb state based codec. You think a lot of feature are missing from mina http codec from the g-ahc one ? Julien (not sure to be clear) > > Thanks, > Sangjin > > > On Jan 30, 2008 6:36 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Jan 30, 2008 1:49 PM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Being that its in the sandbox...anything goes. ;-) >> > >> > However...with that said...lets see what pans out here at Mina. I >> would >> > certainly consider the delta now before we get 3 diverse versions ;-) >> > >> > Yes the preferred version is Mina 2.x. >> > >> > >> Indeed! We might want to first make sure the two Geronimo forks are >> merged >> and using MINA 2.0. Meaning all the features and fixes in the one based >> on >> MINA 1.1.x are put into the one based on MINA 2.0-M1. >> >> That might bring the consolidated Geronimo fork closer to the MINA >> version >> in Asyncweb trunk. Then we can focus on how to merge these two >> together? >> >> Alex >> >
