Do you happen to know how they propose to solve the whole
netty-doesn't-have-binary-compatibility issue? It's a bit of a PITA
trying to use two libraries that depend on netty right now
Jonas
On 11/21/19 12:42 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
It's a bit complicated, for the most part the work has continued
but
under
https://github.com/quarkusio/quarkus-http
It was decided in Quarkus that for a consistent user experience we
actually wanted a HTTP stack based on Vert.x, so the existing Netty work
was modified to have a connector SPI, and then a Vert.x implementation
of this (leaving open the possibility of a pure Netty implementation as
well).
My gut feeling is that even though the Vert.x backend makes sense for
Quarkus this does not make sense for Undertow as a standalone project,
so we are going to continue this work as 'Undertow 3.0' we would need a
pure Netty backend as well as the existing vert.x one. Even though it is
based on the same code base I am not sure if it actually makes sense to
try and move this code back to the Undertow project, it may make more
sense to just consider it a Quarkus specific fork. It would be good to
get some feedback from the community about how to handle this, as I am
not really sure what the best solution is here.
During this time Undertow 2.x has continued to be under active
development, and will continue to be developed for the foreseeable future.
Stuart
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 06:31, Steve Hu <stevehu(a)gmail.com
<mailto:stevehu@gmail.com>> wrote:
There has been no active update in the branch 3.x since June. Any
strategy or direction change since the Netty migration announcement?
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev