<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:49 PM Darran Lofthouse <<a href="mailto:darran.lofthouse@jboss.com">darran.lofthouse@jboss.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:42 PM Stuart Douglas <<a href="mailto:sdouglas@redhat.com" target="_blank">sdouglas@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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)?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Will start to get some PRs in - I think the executors are the hardest change but will start with these as I find them.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>In this case I think we should get rid of the Netty one entirely, and just have an agnostic one.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 I think once we have agnostic alternatives remove the Netty specifics from Undertow 3.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We have added new methods in micros before, but if we are doing a big chunk of them we should target 2.1.</div><div><br></div><div>Stuart</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Stuart</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>I suspect a number of the other changes breaking API compatibility could be handled in a similar way.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Darran Lofthouse.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
undertow-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev</a></blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>