Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
It's really nice to see you guys cooperating. Let me look forward to the incoming patches. :-) Cheers, Trustin On Jan 16, 2008 4:37 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind, I made a Mina 2 branch of AHC in the Geronimo sandbox a few weeks back...Its basically the same as the AHC Mina 1, but the APIs ere changed to work with Mina 2. But the Mina version is significantly different from the one in G right now. Jeff Sangjin Lee wrote: On 1/15/08, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Right. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said something like we'll *want* to migrate from Geronimo AHC to a Mina AHC... Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Sangjin is not a Geronimo committer, but has been making some nice contributions... There's no express procedure for moving code from Geronimo to Mina. You can always just copy the code. However, best, if Sangjin and Rick engaged with your community -- explaining their changes, and submitting patches. I'm suggesting that they do that, but it's their decision to make... --kevan As Kevan said, I'm not yet a Geronimo committer, but I've been actively providing patches around AHC, and I hope I'd be a committer soon. It'd be nice to become a Mina committer as well. :) I agree the right thing to do is for us to resubmit patches to Mina. Since the version of Mina the Geronimo AHC is based on is 1.1.x, I suspect simple copy just won't work. We could essentially replay our patches (presumably in the same order), making sure things work correctly at each step. How does that sound? Thanks, Sangjin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:30:15 -0700 Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? You mean committer, not PMC? ;-) As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Yes...absolutely (wait and have patches subitted or some contribution). Follow the Apache way ;-) Yet another list to subscribe to... ;-) Welcome! ;) Trustin Hi, If the contributions was large enough, perhaps an we simply base our vote on the commits realised on the AHC in the Geronimo sandbox ? Disclamer : I'm not really fluent with ASF written and non-written rules :) Julien
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Right. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said something like we'll *want* to migrate from Geronimo AHC to a Mina AHC... Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Sangjin is not a Geronimo committer, but has been making some nice contributions... There's no express procedure for moving code from Geronimo to Mina. You can always just copy the code. However, best, if Sangjin and Rick engaged with your community -- explaining their changes, and submitting patches. I'm suggesting that they do that, but it's their decision to make... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On 1/15/08, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Right. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said something like we'll *want* to migrate from Geronimo AHC to a Mina AHC... Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Sangjin is not a Geronimo committer, but has been making some nice contributions... There's no express procedure for moving code from Geronimo to Mina. You can always just copy the code. However, best, if Sangjin and Rick engaged with your community -- explaining their changes, and submitting patches. I'm suggesting that they do that, but it's their decision to make... --kevan As Kevan said, I'm not yet a Geronimo committer, but I've been actively providing patches around AHC, and I hope I'd be a committer soon. It'd be nice to become a Mina committer as well. :) I agree the right thing to do is for us to resubmit patches to Mina. Since the version of Mina the Geronimo AHC is based on is 1.1.x, I suspect simple copy just won't work. We could essentially replay our patches (presumably in the same order), making sure things work correctly at each step. How does that sound? Thanks, Sangjin
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Keep in mind, I made a Mina 2 branch of AHC in the Geronimo sandbox a few weeks back...Its basically the same as the AHC Mina 1, but the APIs ere changed to work with Mina 2. But the Mina version is significantly different from the one in G right now. Jeff Sangjin Lee wrote: On 1/15/08, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Right. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said something like we'll *want* to migrate from Geronimo AHC to a Mina AHC... Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Sangjin is not a Geronimo committer, but has been making some nice contributions... There's no express procedure for moving code from Geronimo to Mina. You can always just copy the code. However, best, if Sangjin and Rick engaged with your community -- explaining their changes, and submitting patches. I'm suggesting that they do that, but it's their decision to make... --kevan As Kevan said, I'm not yet a Geronimo committer, but I've been actively providing patches around AHC, and I hope I'd be a committer soon. It'd be nice to become a Mina committer as well. :) I agree the right thing to do is for us to resubmit patches to Mina. Since the version of Mina the Geronimo AHC is based on is 1.1.x, I suspect simple copy just won't work. We could essentially replay our patches (presumably in the same order), making sure things work correctly at each step. How does that sound? Thanks, Sangjin
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Jeff, Can you point me to the Mina 2 branch of AHC in G sandbox? Thanks, Sangjin On 1/15/08, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind, I made a Mina 2 branch of AHC in the Geronimo sandbox a few weeks back...Its basically the same as the AHC Mina 1, but the APIs ere changed to work with Mina 2. But the Mina version is significantly different from the one in G right now. Jeff Sangjin Lee wrote: On 1/15/08, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Right. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said something like we'll *want* to migrate from Geronimo AHC to a Mina AHC... Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Sangjin is not a Geronimo committer, but has been making some nice contributions... There's no express procedure for moving code from Geronimo to Mina. You can always just copy the code. However, best, if Sangjin and Rick engaged with your community -- explaining their changes, and submitting patches. I'm suggesting that they do that, but it's their decision to make... --kevan As Kevan said, I'm not yet a Geronimo committer, but I've been actively providing patches around AHC, and I hope I'd be a committer soon. It'd be nice to become a Mina committer as well. :) I agree the right thing to do is for us to resubmit patches to Mina. Since the version of Mina the Geronimo AHC is based on is 1.1.x, I suspect simple copy just won't work. We could essentially replay our patches (presumably in the same order), making sure things work correctly at each step. How does that sound? Thanks, Sangjin
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Hi sangjin, http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/async-http-client-mina2/ Jeff Sangjin Lee wrote: Jeff, Can you point me to the Mina 2 branch of AHC in G sandbox? Thanks, Sangjin On 1/15/08, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind, I made a Mina 2 branch of AHC in the Geronimo sandbox a few weeks back...Its basically the same as the AHC Mina 1, but the APIs ere changed to work with Mina 2. But the Mina version is significantly different from the one in G right now. Jeff Sangjin Lee wrote: On 1/15/08, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Right. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said something like we'll *want* to migrate from Geronimo AHC to a Mina AHC... Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Sangjin is not a Geronimo committer, but has been making some nice contributions... There's no express procedure for moving code from Geronimo to Mina. You can always just copy the code. However, best, if Sangjin and Rick engaged with your community -- explaining their changes, and submitting patches. I'm suggesting that they do that, but it's their decision to make... --kevan As Kevan said, I'm not yet a Geronimo committer, but I've been actively providing patches around AHC, and I hope I'd be a committer soon. It'd be nice to become a Mina committer as well. :) I agree the right thing to do is for us to resubmit patches to Mina. Since the version of Mina the Geronimo AHC is based on is 1.1.x, I suspect simple copy just won't work. We could essentially replay our patches (presumably in the same order), making sure things work correctly at each step. How does that sound? Thanks, Sangjin
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Hi Kevan, On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) AHC already depends on MINA. For now, MINA has older version of AHC as a submodule, and Jeff is trying to move the stuff in the G sandbox here. Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Yet another list to subscribe to... ;-) Welcome! ;) Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Trustin Lee wrote: Sure we are! Please feel free to start to make contribution. :) BTW is there any express procedure for accepting the existing AHC committers (i.e. Sangjin and Rick) in the MINA PMC? You mean committer, not PMC? ;-) As you know, they are not ASF members and didn't contribute directly to the MINA project so far. I wonder what I am supposed to do. Should I wait for some patches from them just like we do for most people? Yes...absolutely (wait and have patches subitted or some contribution). Follow the Apache way ;-) Yet another list to subscribe to... ;-) Welcome! ;) Trustin
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Note that this is cross-posted to geronimo dev and mina dev lists... Hopefully the last one... Alex and Trustin, Thanks for the info... More below... On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Sounds like a good plan. We wouldn't necessarily *have* to migrate, but I, for one, would expect that we'll *want* to migrate to Mina (once Mina was able to release the functionality and assuming Mina is as good as AHC... ;-) Sangjin, Rick, *and* Jeff have been making a number of changes and enhancements to AHC in our sandbox. Looks like some nice stuff... I would assume you'd be interested in their work (and would guess they'd like to share it with you)? Best to work out those details on mina dev, I would think... Rick has been a G committer for a while... Sangjin is new to our community, but has been making a number of good contributions to AHC. Yet another list to subscribe to... ;-) --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. IMHO, AsyncWeb itself, being David (Irving) the original contributor of the project, needs more work and more contributor(s) to become a part of the trunk because David seems to be too busy to follow up the subproject for now unfortunately. Where are you David? We miss you so much! :) Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Trustin Lee wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) Jeff IMHO, AsyncWeb itself, being David (Irving) the original contributor of the project, needs more work and more contributor(s) to become a part of the trunk because David seems to be too busy to follow up the subproject for now unfortunately. Where are you David? We miss you so much! :) Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) ;-) Cheers, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. I know that. You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. Makes sense? Alex On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
I think you missed it again. See here: On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. They don't want to fork it at Geronimo but would prefer it to find a home that is more fitting. http-client was mentioned. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. I know that. You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. Makes sense? Yep, thanks for the information. On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira, etc. At the moment, I'm leaning towards 3) -- geronimo/components/ahc (or some more descriptive name), but could probably be swayed... --kevan -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
What's important is actually not where to host it or whether to fork or not - Jeff, the main contributor of the project, and the MINA team already decided to host it under the MINA trunk and Jeff wants to keep working on here with AHC. So I think Jeff will take care of the Geronimo discussion properly. I also think it's OK even if they do whatever they want to do with G sandbox as long as Jeff will keep working here, which is much more reasonable than hosting it under HttpComponent project or Geronimo trunk. Jeff should explain this to the Geronimo team and I believe he already did very enough as a person who wants to host it here. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 8:27 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you missed it again. See here: On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. They don't want to fork it at Geronimo but would prefer it to find a home that is more fitting. http-client was mentioned. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. I know that. You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. Makes sense? Yep, thanks for the information. On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into trunk. There are a couple options as to where it could reside - 1) under server/trunk/applications 2) under server/trunk/plugins 3) under geronimo/components/ What are everyone's thoughts? I'd like to get this into our 2.1 release and possibly into the 2.0.x branch if time allows. Personally, I don't think it should go into server/trunk. There's a 4'th option -- create a subproject (e.g. geronimo/ahc). The only real difference, between this and 3) is web site, jira,
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Hey, Alex just posted some X-post information to MINA and Geronimo, just to inform MINA that Geronimo want to get Jeff's work out from Sandbox. What are all the next mails about ? I see mentions of a kind of roadmap for geronimo, and some other informations about asynchweb which is totally a different beast... I think some context has been added, and not through mails... Any heads up ? Trustin Lee wrote: What's important is actually not where to host it or whether to fork or not - Jeff, the main contributor of the project, and the MINA team already decided to host it under the MINA trunk and Jeff wants to keep working on here with AHC. So I think Jeff will take care of the Geronimo discussion properly. I also think it's OK even if they do whatever they want to do with G sandbox as long as Jeff will keep working here, which is much more reasonable than hosting it under HttpComponent project or Geronimo trunk. Jeff should explain this to the Geronimo team and I believe he already did very enough as a person who wants to host it here. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 8:27 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you missed it again. See here: On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. They don't want to fork it at Geronimo but would prefer it to find a home that is more fitting. http-client was mentioned. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. I know that. You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. Makes sense? Yep, thanks for the information. On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote: There has been a lot of ongoing work by Jeff, Prasad, Rick, Sangjin and others on the AsyncHttpClient (aka. AHC) code in the sandbox and I'd like to start the discussion on moving it from sandbox into
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Ugg...yeah...we need to get that team looking at our stuff. The problem is that the large delta is where the problem is going to be. I would like to see the delta be made and brought over here and have them work over here. Jeff Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: Hey, Alex just posted some X-post information to MINA and Geronimo, just to inform MINA that Geronimo want to get Jeff's work out from Sandbox. What are all the next mails about ? I see mentions of a kind of roadmap for geronimo, and some other informations about asynchweb which is totally a different beast... I think some context has been added, and not through mails... Any heads up ? Trustin Lee wrote: What's important is actually not where to host it or whether to fork or not - Jeff, the main contributor of the project, and the MINA team already decided to host it under the MINA trunk and Jeff wants to keep working on here with AHC. So I think Jeff will take care of the Geronimo discussion properly. I also think it's OK even if they do whatever they want to do with G sandbox as long as Jeff will keep working here, which is much more reasonable than hosting it under HttpComponent project or Geronimo trunk. Jeff should explain this to the Geronimo team and I believe he already did very enough as a person who wants to host it here. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 8:27 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you missed it again. See here: On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. They don't want to fork it at Geronimo but would prefer it to find a home that is more fitting. http-client was mentioned. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 6:16 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I think it's OK for the Geronimo team to fork AHC, and I'd like to respect them if Jeff already gave the information that his AHC work will be placed under MINA trunk. They have their release schedule and I don't want to let them wait for us. They will need to migrate to the official MINA AHC eventually though. Jeff could show us better road map for this. Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AsyncWeb and Jeff's AsyncHttpClient are different projects. Anyways, Jeff is free to modify the trunk, which already contains AsyncHttpClient, whenever he wants. I know that. You obviously missed why I posted this information. The AsyncHttpClient code Jeff worked on in his Geronimo sandbox is about to get forked over to some other project. The Geronimo folks are looking for a home for it. I wanted people in general to know that Jeff is here working on that stuff. Makes sense? Yep, thanks for the information. On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: He made some big changes in Geronimo sandbox before I made some big changes in his original contribution, and that's why it's taking some time. So.. Jeff will migrate the code to the trunk eventually I guess. Yes I will ;-) I am swamped at the moment...but I will ;-) On Jan 10, 2008 6:16 AM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Jeff started working on some of it over at MINA btw. Excuse the cross post. Alex On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is better and easier than http-client are they interested in it? Seems like a logical fit. That said, I think Genender boy wanted to melt some metal when he started this work. If it remains without a home I'd put it in components and let folks pick it up if they are interested. On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Donald Woods wrote: #3 is okay with me. Was just thinking that #2 (plugin) would allow us to expose it on our plugin website and allow other users to just place a dependency on it in their plugins Oops. Got distracted and forgot to reply... I was thinking that AHC functionality could be released under components (and thus easier to consume by other projects). We can then create a plugin which includes this component. So, really a combination of 2 and 3. --kevan -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 5, 2008,
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Jeff Genender wrote: Ugg...yeah...we need to get that team looking at our stuff. The problem is that the large delta is where the problem is going to be. I would like to see the delta be made and brought over here and have them work over here. Jeff As there is nothing like what you have written in MINA currently, your options are : - move it from geronimo sandbox to some Mina sandbox - create a sub-project in Mina Obvioulsy, #1 is not a valid option ;) Am I wrong ? /Snip -- -- cordialement, regards, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com directory.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Not wrong at all. Its a little more complicated than that though :/ Let me get some of those guys to chime in. Jeff Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: Ugg...yeah...we need to get that team looking at our stuff. The problem is that the large delta is where the problem is going to be. I would like to see the delta be made and brought over here and have them work over here. Jeff As there is nothing like what you have written in MINA currently, your options are : - move it from geronimo sandbox to some Mina sandbox - create a sub-project in Mina Obvioulsy, #1 is not a valid option ;) Am I wrong ? /Snip
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Thanks Jeff for taking care of this! I know it's a complicated task for anyone, but I believe you are the only one who can take care of this this time. We don't need to rush but can move step by step. :-) Cheers, Trustin On Jan 10, 2008 9:18 AM, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not wrong at all. Its a little more complicated than that though :/ Let me get some of those guys to chime in. Jeff Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: Ugg...yeah...we need to get that team looking at our stuff. The problem is that the large delta is where the problem is going to be. I would like to see the delta be made and brought over here and have them work over here. Jeff As there is nothing like what you have written in MINA currently, your options are : - move it from geronimo sandbox to some Mina sandbox - create a sub-project in Mina Obvioulsy, #1 is not a valid option ;) Am I wrong ? /Snip -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
On Jan 10, 2008 9:00 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Alex just posted some X-post information to MINA and Geronimo, just to inform MINA that Geronimo want to get Jeff's work out from Sandbox. What are all the next mails about ? I see mentions of a kind of roadmap for geronimo, and some other informations about asynchweb which is totally a different beast... I think some context has been added, and not through mails... Any heads up ? From the MINA's standpoint, AHC is already in the trunk, so I misunderstood 'sandbox' in the subject line is incorrect, although it's actually correct from the Geronimo's standpoint because AHC also exists in the G sandbox. So I thought Alex was referring to AsyncWeb, which is in our sandbox. I misunderstood here. And... Geronimo road map... I meant that it's up to Geronimo team to move their sandbox content to their trunk meanwhile if AHC is a required component which needs release according to their road map. It doesn't matter for me anyway because Jeff will move the stuff there here sooner or later. I am sorry if there was some confusion. :) Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Trustin Lee wrote: I am sorry if there was some confusion. :) Confusion does not matter as soon as it has been clarified :) Thanks Trustin ! -- -- cordialement, regards, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com directory.apache.org
