Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
On Feb 11, 2008 8:20 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:20 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: On Feb 11, 2008 7:37 AM, Mike Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new logging features in SLF4J and removing IoSessionLogger were what was holding up an M1 release. Where do we stand on the logging front right now? see my comments on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-513 IoSessionLogger has been removed, but I could not yet add MDC-aware Formatter implementations because the new SLF4J hasn't been released. Meanwhile Ceki has published an SLF4J-API-1.5.0-M0 in maven. I will commit the formatter asap (hopefully tonight CET) and close this issue. Just curious. What are these logging features that are so important? Hello Alan, see http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--MINA--2.0-Milestone-1---p15092056s16868.html DIRMINA-513 wasn't that important IMO. But about two weeks ago it was the only unresolved issue for 2.0.0-M1, so we decided to fix it before cutting the first milestone. And it's fixed now. regards, Maarten
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
On Feb 11, 2008 7:37 AM, Mike Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new logging features in SLF4J and removing IoSessionLogger were what was holding up an M1 release. Where do we stand on the logging front right now? see my comments on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-513 IoSessionLogger has been removed, but I could not yet add MDC-aware Formatter implementations because the new SLF4J hasn't been released. Meanwhile Ceki has published an SLF4J-API-1.5.0-M0 in maven. I will commit the formatter asap (hopefully tonight CET) and close this issue. Maarten -Mike Maarten Bosteels wrote: On Feb 10, 2008 9:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: Hello, On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned before you hit beta? The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1] IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could require an API change. According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2 but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it. I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6) but no show-stoppers AFAICS. Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ? Maybe I'm being dense. You mean 2.0-RC1? When do you guys cut a branch to stabilize your beta? Does it depend on the situation? Good question. In my very humble opinion cutting 2-0-M1 means : (a) creating a 2.0 branch and (b) creating a 2.0-M1 tag All further development for 2.0 would then happen on the 2.0 branch instead of on the trunk. Isn't that the usual way to proceed ? Maarten Regards, Alan
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned before you hit beta? Regards, Alan On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap. Maarten On Feb 9, 2008 7:49 PM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x and wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out. So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0 and we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts? IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best route here and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge. Perhaps there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list and here. Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be the case since I have been catching up as well. Well, it is in SVN. At the moment there are two clients in there. The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM configuration. I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo. Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA 2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0 through and through because of the gains made therein. Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible. I think that MINA 2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a little bit for things to shake out. IIUC, there's still discussion to fiddle with bits of 2.0. I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now. Its characteristics are known and it's been around the block a few times. I am happy to do the scut work for a 1.0 release. Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :). You can always work on a 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA 2.0release is imminent. Furthermore there's been considerable effort put into keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a common goal. Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community. We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are working closely with the AHC developers. It's really great to see ramping up and took a bit of effort. If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately. Fragmenting this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC just when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good. Please don't presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0. Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate whatever it may be. Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly? Thanks, Alex
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Hello, On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned before you hit beta? The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1] IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could require an API change. According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2 but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it. I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6) but no show-stoppers AFAICS. Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ? Maarten Regards, Alan On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap. Maarten On Feb 9, 2008 7:49 PM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x and wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out. So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0 and we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts? IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best route here and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge. Perhaps there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list and here. Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be the case since I have been catching up as well. Well, it is in SVN. At the moment there are two clients in there. The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM configuration. I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo. Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA 2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0 through and through because of the gains made therein. Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible. I think that MINA 2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a little bit for things to shake out. IIUC, there's still discussion to fiddle with bits of 2.0. I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now. Its characteristics are known and it's been around the block a few times. I am happy to do the scut work for a 1.0 release. Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :). You can always work on a 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA 2.0release is imminent. Furthermore there's been considerable effort put into keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a common goal. Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community. We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are working closely with the AHC developers. It's really great to see ramping up and took a bit of effort. If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately. Fragmenting this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC just when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good. Please don't presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0. Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate whatever it may be. Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly? Thanks, Alex
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: Hello, On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned before you hit beta? The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1] IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could require an API change. According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2 but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it. I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6) but no show-stoppers AFAICS. Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ? Maybe I'm being dense. You mean 2.0-RC1? When do you guys cut a branch to stabilize your beta? Does it depend on the situation? Regards, Alan
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Until 2.0 GA we should leave the trunk as is. When we go to GA after some number of milestones then we can create the 2.0 branch which will only include bug fixes. Right now the bleeding edge is the trunk. This is where all new features and API changes occur. I think we can do milestone releases while there are JIRA issues associated with new features and API changes. Then we can announce a feature/API freeze. We can release some GA candidates that stabilize the trunk in preparation for the GA release: not that we're not stable but this option exists. Then when we all have agreed that a GA should be cut we can branch, tag and release. The trunk becomes 2.1 or whatever we like to call it. Only bug fixes occur on the 2.0 branch. New features and API changes go into 2.1 in the trunk. Does this sound reasonable? BTW we should have cut a M1 or M0 (the first milestone release) from the trunk a while back. I had asked when this would happen. There is no limit to the number of milestone releases we can have. So let's pump one out. If something pops up that presents some urgency we can release again. Let's follow the release early, release often mantra. Alex On Feb 10, 2008 4:05 PM, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 2008 9:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: Hello, On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned before you hit beta? The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1] IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could require an API change. According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2 but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it. I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6) but no show-stoppers AFAICS. Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ? Maybe I'm being dense. You mean 2.0-RC1? When do you guys cut a branch to stabilize your beta? Does it depend on the situation? Good question. In my very humble opinion cutting 2-0-M1 means : (a) creating a 2.0 branch and (b) creating a 2.0-M1 tag All further development for 2.0 would then happen on the 2.0 branch instead of on the trunk. Isn't that the usual way to proceed ? Maarten Regards, Alan
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
2008-02-10 (일), 00:56 +0100, Maarten Bosteels 쓰시길: Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap. Yeah, go MINA! :) Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
The new logging features in SLF4J and removing IoSessionLogger were what was holding up an M1 release. Where do we stand on the logging front right now? -Mike Maarten Bosteels wrote: On Feb 10, 2008 9:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote: Hello, On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it ready? You're only at M1. What are the next milestones planned before you hit beta? The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1] IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some reason we have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that could require an API change. According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2 but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it. I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I thought (6) but no show-stoppers AFAICS. Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ? Maybe I'm being dense. You mean 2.0-RC1? When do you guys cut a branch to stabilize your beta? Does it depend on the situation? Good question. In my very humble opinion cutting 2-0-M1 means : (a) creating a 2.0 branch and (b) creating a 2.0-M1 tag All further development for 2.0 would then happen on the 2.0 branch instead of on the trunk. Isn't that the usual way to proceed ? Maarten Regards, Alan
[AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x and wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out. So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0 and we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts? Regards, Alan
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
I agree...I think 2.0 is the way to go...the enhancements really make it nicer. Jeff Alex Karasulu wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x and wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out. So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0 and we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts? IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best route here and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge. Perhaps there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list and here. Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be the case since I have been catching up as well. Well, it is in SVN. At the moment there are two clients in there. The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM configuration. I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo. Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA 2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0 through and through because of the gains made therein. Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible. I think that MINA 2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a little bit for things to shake out. IIUC, there's still discussion to fiddle with bits of 2.0. I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now. Its characteristics are known and it's been around the block a few times. I am happy to do the scut work for a 1.0 release. Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :). You can always work on a 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA 2.0release is imminent. Furthermore there's been considerable effort put into keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a common goal. Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community. We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are working closely with the AHC developers. It's really great to see ramping up and took a bit of effort. If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately. Fragmenting this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC just when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good. Please don't presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0. Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate whatever it may be. Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly? Thanks, Alex
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Alex Karasulu wrote: snip IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best route here and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge. Perhaps there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list and here. Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be the case since I have been catching up as well. I'm still working on the merge. It's a lot of work. There are a lot of very big differences between the AHC codec and the AsyncWeb codec. The AsyncWeb codec is designed to be independent of the client/server that uses it while the AHC codec is tightly coupled to the AHC client. Refactoring AHC to use the AsyncWeb codec has been challenging. It will be a while before the merge is complete. Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping to 2.0to denote the use of MINA 2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0 through and through because of the gains made therein. I'm of the opinion that we should use MINA 2.0. I think AsyncWeb will draw a lot of attention to MINA which will help us work out any kinks in MINA 2.0. MINA 2.0 also has a lot of new features that can be utilized to minimize the number of threads needed for MINA apps. -Mike
Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community I couldn't agree more. I really see no reason to stick with 1.x In fact, I think we should 'release' MINA-2.0-M1 asap. Maarten On Feb 9, 2008 7:49 PM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 PM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What should I use? I prefer the API from Geronimo but I see that it doesn't get built in in Mina. I would also prefer to use Mina 1.x and wait until Mina 2.x shakes itself out. So, I'm going to toss out the idea of releasing the new API as 1.0 and we can release the new Mina 2.x based API as 2.0. Thoughts? IMO I think looking ahead towards the use of MINA 2.0 is the best route here and it seems that people have already taken care of the merge. Perhaps there's some emails that you may have missed on the commits@ list and here. Mike already merged the two I think unless I'm mistaken which may be the case since I have been catching up as well. Well, it is in SVN. At the moment there are two clients in there. The newer one does not get added to the Jar artifact per its POM configuration. I really prefer the newer one from Geronimo. Oh and 1.0 whichever MINA it's based on makes sense to me but jumping to 2.0 to denote the use of MINA 2.0 sounds good too. I just think we should stick to MINA 2.0 through and through because of the gains made therein. Only the Pope and my mother-in-law are infallible. I think that MINA 2.x rocks and will be a resounding success but I think it will take a little bit for things to shake out. IIUC, there's still discussion to fiddle with bits of 2.0. I just want to start w/ MINA 1.x for now. Its characteristics are known and it's been around the block a few times. I am happy to do the scut work for a 1.0 release. Loved the comment about the Pope and your MIL :). You can always work on a 1.0 based version but we're still far from a release as well since the PMC is just mobilizing around these new projects. Also note that a MINA 2.0release is imminent. Furthermore there's been considerable effort put into keeping all the people interested in Asyncweb working together towards a common goal. Sticking to MINA 2.0 overall will be in the best interest of the community. We're seeing great synergy where core MINA folks are working closely with the AHC developers. It's really great to see ramping up and took a bit of effort. If there are any hick-ups along the way with MINA 2.0 you have my word and I'm sure the word of others' here to resolve them immediately. Fragmenting this community into those that work on 1.0 and 2.0 based version of AHC just when the collaboration is ramping up would not be good. Please don't presume the time frame is going to be longer when based on MINA 2.0. Whatever the issue may be for you we'll try our best to accommodate whatever it may be. Is there some other problem that you have not mentioned which requires a 1.0 release besides just doing it rapidly? Thanks, Alex
