On Mar 18, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mar 18, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Mike Heath wrote:
Alex Karasulu wrote:
This is your specific situation right? I don't want to leave you
hanging
but we're really jumping head over heels to make one user
comfortable. I
think we paved the road for you to be able to achieve what you need
by
granting you karma to work directly on this code base. We're open
but need
you to provide a little bit of leeway so we can get everyone on the
same
base eventually. This move to M2 is a small step in that direction
and will
have all the Asyncweb modules which include this client on the same
MINA
dependency.
See if you can push back a little to convince your employer of the
benefits. At the end of the day, aligning this this community will
be as
good for you and your employer as it will be for all of us. Let's
not be
myopic and loose out on gains in the future. Can you try to push
this for
the project?
If AHC is working fine and is tested with MINA 1.1 in it's current
state, I don't see any point to pushing to MINA 2.0 just for the
sake of
moving to MINA 2.0. If AHC has been tested and working well, I
don't
think we should disrupt that.
If we move forward with a new client API as we've been discussing,
this
new implementation must be based on MINA 2.0 because the AsyncWeb
codec
is MINA 2.0 based.
This reflects my sentiments as well. I think that it's worth nothing
that I it us my strongly held belief that everyone is committed to a
new and improved v2.0 AHC based on MINA v2.0 and that only patches
will be put in the AHC v1.0 branch.
Very well I was looking for a compromise here but I don't have the
time or
wattage to keep discussing this. I spent a lot of time and energy
to try to
get you guys here to prevent a rift with these forks that would
eventually
hurt everyone in terms of productivity.
Regardless just knowing that people are looking at the big picture
for a
unified Asyncweb is enough for me to trust that our eyes are on the
future
as well as the now. I trust that you all value the proper
progression of
this project so there's no reason for me to worry about it.
Your motives make sense and are fair. I agree and will commit to
being vehemently opposed to anything other than bug fixes to this
proposed v1.0 release.
Regards,
Alan
