+1!!!! Peter has done a bunch of very serious and very need code structure improvements. Not using this work for the future of River would be a poor choice.
I am sorry that I can not take a more active role in helping out right now. That might change in the future, but for now I need to sit on the side and be an observer. Gregg Wonderly Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 22, 2014, at 916AM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If this proposal is supported, I'd also reccommend that trunk be reverted >>> back to the 2.2 River branch, with the exception of Sim's work on >>> ClassLoading, which should be included. >>> >>> Provided there is support, change trunk to review then commit without lazy >>> concensus. >>> >>> I would finish the work on qa_refactor and solve the remaining >>> multithreaded issues (on a longer lower pressure time schedule), the River >>> community can then decide whether it wants to use code from qa_refactor on >>> an as needed basis. I believe that the River community will find this code >>> a useful reference for latent multithreaded bugs. >>> >> >> I’m in favour of this approach. > > I'm not. I think trunk should contain the ongoing development of River. We > have the 2.2 branch, I think 2.2 should stay there. I would like to see > qa_refactor moved to trunk, have com.sun.jini namespace changed to > org.apache.river and move to 3.0. > > Regards > > Dennis >
