I am in agreement as well. I would like to see this merge happen quickly so the users see progress and there's no longer any need to keep the G branch alive. Someone said to me you need to get cookin in the kitchen when the guests arrive :). Then we can just start releasing some milestones that people can use and we can track/patch etc.
It's nice now that MINA 2.0-m1 is out. This means we can release an Asyncweb milestone as a whole. Also another thing I want people to think about is that this project is one unit rather than just a client. There's a server in there too and we can release it together. The community around this is coming together fast and that's just great which means there's a good potential for graduating this project eventually. These are my hopes for Asyncweb. Alex On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Alan...I understood that the G version was going away now > that we built community over here on this. Comments? > > Jeff > > Alan Cabrera wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > >> AsyncHttpClient was changed w/ the last checkin on 2/26 and now the > >> build is broken. > > > > I looked at the actual changes. I'm just trying to grok the changes > > because I realize that I am new here. It seems that the "old" > > AsyncHttpClient is still evolving? How does this fit in with the plans > > for the "old" AsyncHttpClient, the "new" Geronimo AsyncHttpClient, and > > the new API that's currently in discussion? > > > > I had thought, maybe naively, that we were going to roll the "old" two > > into the new one. > > > > > > Regards, > > Alan >
