That sounds like a good idea. Just so I understand, your proposal is to move the existing AHC in the Geronimo sandbox based on mina 1.1.x over to asyncweb under a branch and keep up the maintenance and support on it, right? Thanks, Sangjin
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > >