Sangjin Lee wrote: > 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.
Why don't we put AHC in a branch in the AsyncWeb Subversion repository? This way AHC can continue using its own codec and we can support and maintain it without going through a lot of work. Once it gets stabilized we could even cut a release. In the mean time, we can continue working toward a revised "2.0" client that uses the AsyncWeb codec. WDYT? -Mike > 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 >
