Trustin Lee wrote:
>
>
> It makes total sense. I'd love to see everything becomes real, though we
> need to draw a line between generalization and specialization when we
> generalize AsyncWeb because MINA already has its role to provide a generic
> network application framework.
>
Absolutely
Trustin Lee wrote:
>
> One possibility though could be that MINA HTTP codec provides only encoder
> and decoder implementation for HTTP messages and AsyncWeb is built on top
> of
> it to provide more tighter integration with existing webapp frameworks and
> more HTTP-friently asynchronous APIs.
peter royal wrote:
>
> I was thinking of a similar relationship to MINA and Directory..
> AsyncWeb would *not* be renamed MINA HTTP.
>
Sounds good to me :o)
Dave
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-pre-proposal--AsyncWeb-tf1931092.html#a5359859
Sent from the Apache In
Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> ...
> I'm fine with this option as well. Let's give it a try. Do the rest of
> you guys agree with this approach?
> ...
>
I think moving asyncweb within a Mina TLP would be very healty for the
project.
One thing I would like to discuss though is identity
AsyncW
peter royal wrote:
>
> dave, do you hold full copyright to put you in a position to make a
> grant?
>
We probably need to check up on that one. The project was released to
Safehaus way back in Feb, and has been developed there since. However, I
developed the original source code at my place
mturk wrote:
> If that happens, I'm willing to help as well.
>
> Although I'm not a huge fun of NIO in Servlet
> container, for the reasons I don't wish to
> elaborate here, a target project could be very
> cool to have.
> It would certainly give us ASF http server
> that comes as part of Java6.
Yoav Shapira-2 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> You might also want to CC Filip Hanik, [EMAIL PROTECTED], on this
> idea. Filip has been busily working on a NIO HTTP implementation for
> Tomcat, and has a working version. We've seen some quirky performance
> out of it. But that's besides the point: I think h
