I would also like to see asyncweb make progress as quickly as possible, and I'd like to contribute to that effect as well. As Mike pointed out in a different thread, however, there are some challenges to this. It's looking more likely that this is not going to be a simple "merge" of code but substantial rework. I think part of it stems from the fact that the old AHC relies on its own codec (based on mina 1.1.x) and the asyncweb already has a good codec that's completely different from AHC's. We do have an immediate need to use AHC *now*, and critical bug fixes need to happen, as we're using it right now. But we're making a conscious effort to limit the changes to mostly bug fixes, and we're trying to propagate the changes to asyncweb whenever it is applicable. Those are the things we're doing (or trying to do) to make sure things don't diverge or get out of hand.
Regards, Sangjin On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > >
