I wouldn't say I'm a Mina expert and I didn't initially code it into Red5, but I personally like how easy it is to write protocol handlers and I/O filters. Oh and theres the speed..
Paul On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]>wrote: > Cool! > > So, you've gone through the 2.0 codebase and found it acceptable? What > features do you like about 2.0 that are not in 1.0 that you find compelling. > Just curious. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Mondain wrote: > > I agree with Norman, as a Red5 core developer we depend on Mina a great >> deal. We are certainly awaiting a release of 2.0 to go along with our >> own forthcoming 1.0 release. Although I have no proof, I do think that >> some >> our own server issues are related to Mina itself and the fixes you have >> mentioned may help us. >> >> Keep up the outstanding work! >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >>> >>> I think it worth to break the API if it's needed to fix things , as >>> long as you assist users while migrating... >>> >>> Just my 2 cent as a Mina user >>> >>> bye >>> Norman >>> 2010/3/1, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On 3/1/10 6:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 3/1/10 6:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/10 4:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Ashish wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unless it breaks the system, i would say lets not loose our sleep >>>>>>>>>> over this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While I share the same opinion about the IoFuture hierarchy as you >>>>>>>>> I have the same sentiments as Ashish. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm afraid that we might have to fix the issue in 2.0.... Trust me, >>>>>>>> i'm not pleased with this ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixing a bug is one thing. Reorganizing a code base a few days >>>>>>> after an attempted vote on its initial release is another. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I know :/ This is why I created a branch, in a desesperate attempt to >>>>>> get rid of all those futures, instead of doing that in trunk. Now, it >>>>>> was the end of a long and painful week, chasing many bugs in many >>>>>> places, and I was turning in circle. >>>>>> >>>>>> I *wish* we can fix the bug, without having to rewrite this part. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another alternative is to totally abandon 2.x. It was never >>>>> officially released. Just leave it as it is and work on the new 2.x >>>>> >>>> I'm also considering this option... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Cordialement, >>>> Emmanuel Lécharny >>>> www.nextury.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://gregoire.org/ >> http://code.google.com/p/red5/ >> http://code.google.com/p/blue5/ >> > > -- http://gregoire.org/ http://code.google.com/p/red5/ http://code.google.com/p/blue5/
