Re: 'protocols' sub-module of MINA
On 7/4/06, peter royal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Irving, Dave wrote: So, my proposal is, how about we start creating module(s) in MINA for protocols? Of course, Im biased - but It would be a shame if we re-wrote http support on top of Mina over again, when we have asyncweb already :o) We were originally going to make asyncweb a subproject of mina, but at the time it was decided it would be cleaner to keep it as a separate project. Right, it certainly would be a shame. Interested in bringing AsyncWeb over here? :) Bringing in AsyncWeb and other possible future contributions will make this project quite too big to fit into a subproject. We might need an incubation process to find a better place for MINA eventually. Any idea? I will CC this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that if it lived w/MINA, it might get more help staying up-to- date with our API changes. I agree with you. :) Cheers, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
Re: 'protocols' sub-module of MINA
How timely...i've just spent the last hour or two today looking at AsyncWeb after Dan Diephouse telling me about it at ApacheCon in Dublin. I'm interested how this could be used by Tuscany or Synapse, so moving it to Apache sounds good to me. ...ant On 7/3/06, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/4/06, peter royal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Irving, Dave wrote: So, my proposal is, how about we start creating module(s) in MINA for protocols? Of course, Im biased - but It would be a shame if we re-wrote http support on top of Mina over again, when we have asyncweb already :o) We were originally going to make asyncweb a subproject of mina, but at the time it was decided it would be cleaner to keep it as a separate project. Right, it certainly would be a shame. Interested in bringing AsyncWeb over here? :) Bringing in AsyncWeb and other possible future contributions will make this project quite too big to fit into a subproject. We might need an incubation process to find a better place for MINA eventually. Any idea? I will CC this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that if it lived w/MINA, it might get more help staying up-to- date with our API changes. I agree with you. :) Cheers, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
Re: 'protocols' sub-module of MINA
On 7/3/06, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How timely...i've just spent the last hour or two today looking at AsyncWeb after Dan Diephouse telling me about it at ApacheCon in Dublin. I'm interested how this could be used by Tuscany or Synapse, so moving it to Apache sounds good to me. Anyone got any impressions on how AsyncWeb compares to Jetty6 with its continuation support? http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty6/index.html -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 'protocols' sub-module of MINA
On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: Bringing in AsyncWeb and other possible future contributions will make this project quite too big to fit into a subproject. We might need an incubation process to find a better place for MINA eventually. Any idea? I will CC this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] JAMES is already @ Apache, so we can collaborate with them on messaging protocols. AsyncWeb would need to come through the incubator. And MINA should continue its plans to migrate out from under the Directory umbrella :) -pete -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://fotap.org/~osi smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: 'protocols' sub-module of MINA
On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:10 PM, James Strachan wrote: On 7/3/06, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How timely...i've just spent the last hour or two today looking at AsyncWeb after Dan Diephouse telling me about it at ApacheCon in Dublin. I'm interested how this could be used by Tuscany or Synapse, so moving it to Apache sounds good to me. Anyone got any impressions on how AsyncWeb compares to Jetty6 with its continuation support? http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty6/index.html AsyncWeb does not offer the servlet API. It provides a non-blocking event-based API to application developers. iirc, you can only do Jetty continuations before you have started to write a response, which limits the scenarios in which they can be used. -pete -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://fotap.org/~osi smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
