[undertow-dev] Undertow 3 API Migration

[Darran Lofthouse]

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 at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:49 PM Darran Lofthouse <
> darran.lofthouse at jboss.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:42 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20190416/23af209e/attachment.html