Edouard De Oliveira wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Edouard,
Been away for some time being very busy...
Yeah, long time, no see !
IMHO, "Release early, release often" should absolutely be our rule
Yep. But we also have to release quality software :)
As previously said MINA 2.0 as been longly awaited so i'd vote to release it as
soon as possible by
removing all big changes maybe also being light on documenting parts we know
would change
(perhaps these docs can be fixed along the way trying to understand what has
been done internally).
As I said, I will let this thread live for a couple of days, so that we
get everyone opinion, then I think that we can launch a vote.
We should fix the basic issues and keep the new ideas for an implementation in
MINA 3.0.
One other thing i though we should improve is redesign internals to
better handle handshake processes i.e without having to hack to buffer writes
during handshakes
or prevent events like SESSION_OPENED from going down the chain while handshake has not
finished by providing some kind of control on these.
You mean, for the SSL Filter ? I don't know that much this filter, but
from what I have seen, it seems to be pretty complicated. I suggest you
draft something about what's wrong about the current handling, and then
submit some proposals to improve this guy. This is the best way to get
things discussed first, and done correctly. Also deciphering this part
would help a lot those of us who don't know this part of the code (well,
I guess that almost nobody knows about it, but of course, I wish I'm
wrong :)
Hope these lines put some light on the way
Of course !
PS : une petite bière un de ces 4, histoire qu'on se rencontre entre
apachiens parisiens ?
Cordialement, Regards,
-Edouard De Oliveira-
http://tedorg.free.fr/en/main.php
________________________________
De : Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : [email protected]
Envoyé le : Lundi, 3 Novembre 2008, 18h01mn 00s
Objet : Re: [About the Filter Chain] Proposals
I agree completely with all of Niklas's comments.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should focus on getting 2.0 out the door. We have been
working on it long enough and I think there are many people using it
in production or near-production systems. Once we release, we will
probably get alot more feedback and can use that feedback to
enhance/fix the next version.
Big +1. We will find areas that we would like to improve during the
foreseeable future (this change and ByteBuffer comes to mind).
yop. And I don't see how we can include that in 2 weeks...
Including all such changes will delay 2.0 for a long time, long enough
for MINA to get behind other frameworks. Having a real release out
will mean getting further feedback from users, so far I haven't seen a
lot of users requesting this change nor the ByteBuffer change. I think
we're too critical, the code is great.
Well, IMHO, the code works. Saying that it's great is another story :) (but
this might just be a matter of taste ...)
Anyway, I agree with what you say. We don't release fast enough. Atm,
regardless to the current code quality, and performance, I think MINA 2 is
usable, even if there are still some issues to fix. I will do some quick
perf tests on ADS with MINA 2 and give you some feedback soon.
Release early, release often.
We do neither.
eh ;)
I would think that we should move right
towards 3.0.
I say go work on a branch (as already suggested) and see where that leads.
There is a new branche for such experiment. Branching is certainly the way
to go, whatever we do regarding the release !
I would like to let this thread go for a little bit (let's say a couple of
days), and then, I think we will have to vote : going for 2.0-RC or modify
the code massively.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
