I hold no strong opinions about the artifactId. Since there is no 1.0
release then I don't see a real need to have a separate artifactId.
Moving GAHC to a 1.0 branch instead of a sandbox would be great and is
the reason I chimed in. I really want to kill GAHC and give it a nice
home here.
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:43 PM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. I'd prefer GAHC to use the same artifactId
with our current trunk stuff as Alex suggested for smooth transition
(and less pollution in our Maven repository :). What do you think
about
moving GAHC to /asyncweb/branches/1.0 instead of sandbox? I'm fine
with
releasing GAHC with AsyncWeb Client 1.0 and release AsyncWeb suite
(i.e.
client + server) with the version number 2 after then.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Exactly, a clear demarcation. It's really G AHC in it's new home.
Also, we're committed that it's a deprecated line and that, when
the new
stuff is ready, everyone should be using the new 2.0 stuff that's
built
on MINA 2.0 goodness.
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Why not have the same artifactId and just have different version?
Or you
want a clear demarcation so there can be no confusion?
Alex
2008/4/3 Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yep, that's it.
The idea was for it to get its own branch and we release it under
1.0 of
it's own artifactId, which would be different than the artifactId
of
the new
client that Mike et al are working on. This would be 2.0 and
written
from
"scratch" off of MINA 2.0.
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote:
I think it's this:
http://www.nabble.com/-AsyncWeb--build-broken-w--last-checkin-td15784297.html
Look towards the bottom (the most recent) of the thread... We
discussed
making it a branch of asyncweb.
Thanks,
Sangjin
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
Where do I look in the headers?
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:51 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Uh.. did we? Could you tell me the message ID so I can re-read
the
related thread?
Thanks,
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
The discussion that took place earlier was that this would be
our
v1.0
release of Async client in the Mina project, IIRC. I think it
still
needs to be put to a vote.
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:48 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Let's move it to the sandbox first and then find out the best
way
to
merge it to upstream (AsyncWeb). WDYT?
Rick McGuire wrote:
Changes to the 1.1.5 AHC client in the Geronimo sandbox appear
to
have
settled down, so I think now would be a good time to move it
to
the Mina
project if everybody agrees. Where would be the appropriate
place
to
put this client?
Rick
--
Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
