Ok, we we start to get PRs in and hold them back we can review how big a change we think this would become and apply to 2.1.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas@redhat.com> wrote:


On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:49 PM Darran Lofthouse <darran.lofthouse@jboss.com> wrote:


On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:42 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas@redhat.com> wrote:

This is a good idea. If you see areas where this can be done can you file a JIRA (or better yet open a PR)?

Will start to get some PRs in - I think the executors are the hardest change but will start with these as I find them.
 
In this case I think we should get rid of the Netty one entirely, and just have an agnostic one.

+1 I think once we have agnostic alternatives remove the Netty specifics from Undertow 3.
 
Maybe we also need an Undertow 2.1 branch, which will aim to improve compatibility by adding methods like this that will work in both versions.

What is the policy regarding adding new API in 2.0 if this approach needs a minor version increment may be useful to get something started.

We have added new methods in micros before, but if we are doing a big chunk of them we should target 2.1.

Stuart
 
 

Stuart
 

I suspect a number of the other changes breaking API compatibility could be handled in a similar way.

Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.





_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev