On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:49 PM Darran Lofthouse <darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com>
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:42 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
>