-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 190
WIP: Migrate the classic remoting to Netty 4. #540
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
The discussion on pekko mailing list has not reached a conclusion. I agree with @jrudolph that we are better off removing classic remoting. His point is that it is very hard to test remoting and there is no need to have 2 styles. So -1 from me on this. |
pjfanning
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
-1 from me - many of us think that we should remove classic remoting and only support artery - or failing that do nothing
|
The Pekko community conversation is at https://lists.apache.org/thread/grzp3jw398rtpc6oqfybzxnry2mtyh64 I would just prefer to see consensus there before we consider merging a PR. There's no harm in testing this solution but I'd prefer if it wasn't merged until the community decides on what we want. |
That's true, I was testing the idea in this draft. |
f5faee3 to
0cf62d1
Compare
|
@pjfanning and @mdedetrich as The poll result, I think I will close this PR. |
|
Your free to close the PR if you want but as was pointed out in https://www.reddit.com/r/scala/comments/160pvne/comment/jxnuvbf/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 if we decide to strictly follow semver we may not have a choice here unless we want to ship code with CVE's , i.e. we would have to keep classic remoting for Pekko 1.1.x |
|
I see the value of keep it and upgrade to Netty 4, but it will need more time to polish too, if it's pr is doomed and will not get merged, then maybe better not put more time on it. Maybe @pjfanning could share some views too. |
Signed-off-by: He-Pin <hepin1989@gmail.com>
0cf62d1 to
739f0fd
Compare

Based on #539
For a preview, may not be landing in 1.1.0 if community dediced to remove the classic remoting in 1.1.0.
Personally,+1 for removing classic remoting in 1.2.0
Will only continue after the the vote done.