Sangjin Lee wrote: > 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
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. -Mike > > > 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 >> >
