> Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community
I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap. Maarten On Feb 9, 2008 7:49 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > > > > On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it > > >> doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x > > >> and > > >> wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out. > > >> > > >> So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0 > > >> and > > >> we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts? > > >> > > > > > > IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best > > > route here > > > and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge. > > > Perhaps > > > there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list > > > and here. > > > Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be > > > the > > > case since I have been catching up as well. > > > > Well, it is in SVN. At the moment there are two clients in there. > > The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM > > configuration. I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo. > > > > > Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping > > > to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA > > > 2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0 > > > through and > > > through because of the gains made therein. > > > > Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible. I think that MINA > > 2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a > > little bit for things to shake out. IIUC, there's still discussion to > > fiddle with bits of 2.0. > > > > I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now. Its characteristics are > > known and it's been around the block a few times. I am happy to do > > the scut work for a 1.0 release. > > > > Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :). You can always work on > a > 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC > is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA > 2.0release is imminent. Furthermore there's been considerable effort > put into > keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a > common goal. Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of > the community. We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are > working > closely with the AHC developers. It's really great to see ramping up and > took a bit of effort. > > If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and > I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately. > Fragmenting > this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC > just > when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good. Please don't > presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0. > Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate > whatever > it may be. Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which > requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly? > > Thanks, > Alex >
