On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@apache.org> wrote: > Ok, guys, > > sorry for my overreaction... > > Sure we have to check what's going on with the builds. > > If we look at the build history, we see that we don't have that many > failures. The problem is that those failures seems to be time-dependent. The > JDK 1.6/Windows build are also in constant failure, and it has to be fixed. > > Looking at som of the failures, I'm a bit annoyed : the failing tests are > totally cryptic, I'm not able to know what is being tested. I would say, > considering MINA's history, I'm not suprised. At some point, it's difficult > to say if : > - the test is broken > - the part which is tested is broken but nobody uses it and should be > removed > - or we have a serious issue > > In any case, for anyone who crawl into the mud^H^H^Hcode it's pretty obvious > that MINA design is far from being extracted from any blue print. Yesterday > I had a look at the IoSession hierarchy, and once agin, it's totally broken. > We have generic used to express the fact that the IoProcessor is typed, but > it's not consistent, and to avoid a compilation error, the top level > processor variable does not use generic. Also we don't have a processor > varibale in the AbstractIoSession, the place it should be. We don't have > either the getProcessor() method in the interface, and I can't move it there > as the API is frozen now. > > What I want to say is : get this bloddy 2.0 out, and let's bury it. It's > dead code, it's a cancer we can't fix. Any time we spend on it is a waste, > and slow down our work on MINA 3.0. > > We have some issues like DIRMINA-764, but it can be worked around on the > client side, and can't be fixed on the server without fixing the whole mess > and breaking the API. I suggest we stop here, unplug the monitor and oxygen, > and move to the next version.
A big +1 Had this thought in my mind, but the way you enthusiastically took up the things stopped me :-) if we try to fix a lot of things in 2.0, we would be rewriting a lot of code :-( The energy is better spent on 3.0 discussions, prototypes, etc etc... thanks ashish
