IMO, I think 2.0 is a good idea. If for nothing else, it can be a
sandbox where some innovation could occur without being inhibited by the
worries of maintaining backward compatibility.
There might also be opportunities for adapting some existing APIs,
including names of APIs to be a little more consistent with well
documented software architecture patterns along with design patterns.
Not that I am trying to say this is a major problem with Grizzly 1.x.
Considering where Grizzly derived from, it was just was not possible to
see that it was gonna evolve into a general purpose framework at its
initial conception when it was originally implemented in GlassFish as
the Grizzly HTTP connector.
charlie ...
Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
> Hi Rajiv,
>
> nice to see you here ;-)
>
> Rajiv Mordani wrote:
>> Jeanfrancois,
>> I think it is a good idea. However I would consider real hard
>> before deciding to break
>> backwards compatibility. Also where is the bulk of the development
>> going to be?
>
> On the 1.7 and up branch, but eventually 1.X will becomes a
> maintenance release, then (and only then) we can make it a branch. All
> current consumers of Grizzly will not be impacted by the "innovations"
> we want to do for 2.0 (v3,Sailfin,Phobos,Jersey,etc.). Grizzly2.0 is
> not for our current users base (unless they decide to use it).
>
> IF it is
>> in the 2.0 area with minimal maintenance / changes in the 1.x
>> codebase for v3 etc then I would
>> make 1.x the branch and let the development continue on 2.0. Again it
>> depends on what the
>> real plan is for grizzly 1.x is going forward and what kind of
>> resources are going to be behind it.
>
> The 2.0 branch will bring, as an example, the concepts we have worked
> on (all the committers here) last year internally at Sun (which was
> breaking compatibility with 1.0, which is why we started with 1.5).
>
> I would say it will be our sandbox and we will eventually vote to
> release it (or not). No impact on any release :-)
>
> A+
>
> -- Jeanfrancois
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> - Rajiv
>>
>> Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a new branch for our upcoming Grizzly2.0
>>> works. For the next couple of month, I would like to allow full
>>> innovation on that branch with no restriction (no backward
>>> compatibility requirement, new features, contributions, new ideas,
>>> etc.). Innovation added to that branch can possibly be ported back
>>> to the 1.x branch, but It should be case by case. Then once we think
>>> we have something we want to officially release Grizzly2.0 release,
>>> we can then decide what to do with backward compatibility, etc.
>>>
>>> Personally I would like to start experimenting with NIO.2 on that
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> What people thinks?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -- Jeanfrancois
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>