You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> on 2008/01/05 20:45:49 UTC
[DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
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.
-Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
#2 sounds good (with #3 later if someone requests it.)
Is there any due diligence work to complete (besides adding
License/Notice files to the jar and checking headers) before we move it
over, given Jeff did most of the work?
-Donald
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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Kevan,
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Kevan,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Sangjin Lee <sj...@gmail.com>.
Jeff,
Can you point me to the Mina 2 branch of AHC in G sandbox?
Thanks,
Sangjin
On 1/15/08, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Kevan,
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
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 <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kevan,
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Sangjin Lee <sj...@gmail.com>.
On 1/15/08, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>
> > Hi Kevan,
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> Hi Kevan,
>
> On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:30:15 -0700
Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> 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
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kevan,
On Jan 12, 2008 2:59 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
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 <jg...@apache.org> 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
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
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
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
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
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think you missed it again. See here:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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 <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 10, 2008 9:00 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> 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
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think you missed it again. See here:
>>
>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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 <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think you missed it again. See here:
>
> > > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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 <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
> >
>
--
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
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
I think you missed it again. See here:
> > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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 <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
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
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Jeff? Jeff?
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.
>
> Trustin
>
> On Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <jg...@apache.org> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> 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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 10, 2008 7:02 AM, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> 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
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ak...@apache.org> 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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
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 <ma...@hogstrom.org> 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
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
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
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
#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....
-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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
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
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
AHC is a framework that allows appllications that need to assemble http
requests from a variety of other http sources. Rather than have to
serialize the requests or spin off a thread for each request, this
interface uses the Mina NIO framework to perform each of the requests
asynchronously.
Prasad wrote a sample benchmark application to test this out:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/samples/trunk/samples/async-http
The benchmark results are fairly impressive. This can provide some
major throughput improvements to these types of applications.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 8:45 PM, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> 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.
>>
>
> Could you describe a little what AHC is for? Without it I'm for moving
> it to trunk too *iff* it builds and others see fit for it in Geronimo.
>
> Jacek
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On Jan 5, 2008 8:45 PM, Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> 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.
Could you describe a little what AHC is for? Without it I'm for moving
it to trunk too *iff* it builds and others see fit for it in Geronimo.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Sangjin Lee <sj...@gmail.com>.
AsyncHttpClient is an implementation of HTTP client functionality based on
Apache Mina. It does non-blocking I/O, and shows great scalability and
performance characteristic. The APIs are quite easy to use with a strong
focus on concurrent programming, employing futures and completion-service
like result handing. It would be a great companion piece for Geronimo to
use in web apps. My 2 cents...
Thanks,
Sangjin
On Jan 8, 2008 10:09 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it actually used in Geronimo? If not, then I would prefer this
> > utility to be say part of http-client.
>
> Well, Geronimo wouldn't be using code out of sandbox, but that's
> potentially a point-in-time/chicken-and-egg issue.
>
> I think it would be useful to hear some details about the
> AsyncHttpClient and how it differs from HTTP Client. My understanding
> is that it's Mina-based and api-wise is easier to use than the HTTP
> client. Somebody willing to fill in with some more detailed info?
>
> --kevan
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it actually used in Geronimo? If not, then I would prefer this
> utility to be say part of http-client.
Well, Geronimo wouldn't be using code out of sandbox, but that's
potentially a point-in-time/chicken-and-egg issue.
I think it would be useful to hear some details about the
AsyncHttpClient and how it differs from HTTP Client. My understanding
is that it's Mina-based and api-wise is easier to use than the HTTP
client. Somebody willing to fill in with some more detailed info?
--kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Time to move AsyncHttpClient out of Sandbox
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
Hi,
Is it actually used in Geronimo? If not, then I would prefer this
utility to be say part of http-client.
Thanks,
Gianny
On 06/01/2008, at 6:45 AM, 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.
>
>
> -Donald