[java] mina upgrade

[Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>]

Hi.

Just wanted to get the lists thoughts on upgrading our dependencies
such as mina for the M2 release. Currently the mina we use requires
backport utils but we could upgrade to the fully java 5 version. Does
anyone have any thoughts or reasons why we shouldn't do this now? It
would be good to upgrade as a number of bugs have been fixed since the
1.0.0 we downgraded to.

-- 
Martin Ritchie

Re: [java] mina upgrade

[Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Hi All,

I'd have some concerns about the scale of impact on a MINA upgrade to the M2
branch. My own feeling is that this is too significant a change to introduce
now, unless it's a bug fix we really need ?

Would certainly need quite a bit of testing, but perhaps more than that it
also offers 'opportunites' to do some stuff with throttling etc. I'm not
sure we ought best to do the upgrade and yet not make the associated
enhancements ....

We're encountered quite a bit of trouble with the MINA stuff in the past,
owing mainly to the complex bits of code it affects afaik, so I'd suggest we
hold off and do this upgrade on trunk for M3.

Hth !

Bfn,
Marnie


On 5/22/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> There are some tests for the retrotranslated client code, or rather the
> client code and anything in the integrationtests module are both
> retrotranslated (but not systemtests as it has a broker dependency, does
> they use an in VM broker?) so can be run together to check the build is
> still 1.4 compatible. Retrotranslator seems pretty good, but there are
> still
> some gaps, so I hope Mina 1.1 doesn't discover any of them.
>
> +1
>
> Rupert
>
> On 22/05/07, Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm +1 for moving to Mina 1.1
> >
> > The client code already requires Java 5 to compile, and our 1.4
> > strategy is to use the retrotranslator.
> >
> > -- Rob
> >
> > On 22/05/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Just wanted to get the lists thoughts on upgrading our dependencies
> > > such as mina for the M2 release. Currently the mina we use requires
> > > backport utils but we could upgrade to the fully java 5 version. Does
> > > anyone have any thoughts or reasons why we shouldn't do this now? It
> > > would be good to upgrade as a number of bugs have been fixed since the
> > > 1.0.0 we downgraded to.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Ritchie
> > >
> >
>

Re: [java] mina upgrade

[Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>]

There are some tests for the retrotranslated client code, or rather the
client code and anything in the integrationtests module are both
retrotranslated (but not systemtests as it has a broker dependency, does
they use an in VM broker?) so can be run together to check the build is
still 1.4 compatible. Retrotranslator seems pretty good, but there are still
some gaps, so I hope Mina 1.1 doesn't discover any of them.

+1

Rupert

On 22/05/07, Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm +1 for moving to Mina 1.1
>
> The client code already requires Java 5 to compile, and our 1.4
> strategy is to use the retrotranslator.
>
> -- Rob
>
> On 22/05/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Just wanted to get the lists thoughts on upgrading our dependencies
> > such as mina for the M2 release. Currently the mina we use requires
> > backport utils but we could upgrade to the fully java 5 version. Does
> > anyone have any thoughts or reasons why we shouldn't do this now? It
> > would be good to upgrade as a number of bugs have been fixed since the
> > 1.0.0 we downgraded to.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Ritchie
> >
>

Re: [java] mina upgrade

[Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>]

I'm +1 for moving to Mina 1.1

The client code already requires Java 5 to compile, and our 1.4
strategy is to use the retrotranslator.

-- Rob

On 22/05/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Just wanted to get the lists thoughts on upgrading our dependencies
> such as mina for the M2 release. Currently the mina we use requires
> backport utils but we could upgrade to the fully java 5 version. Does
> anyone have any thoughts or reasons why we shouldn't do this now? It
> would be good to upgrade as a number of bugs have been fixed since the
> 1.0.0 we downgraded to.
>
> --
> Martin Ritchie
>