Skip to content
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

WIP: Migrate the classic remoting to Netty 4. #540

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

He-Pin
Copy link
Member

@He-Pin He-Pin commented Aug 5, 2023

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.

@pjfanning
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@pjfanning pjfanning left a 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

@pjfanning
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@He-Pin
Copy link
Member Author

He-Pin commented Aug 5, 2023

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.

@He-Pin He-Pin changed the title Migrate the classic remoting to Netty 4. WIP: Migrate the classic remoting to Netty 4. Aug 6, 2023
@He-Pin He-Pin force-pushed the netty4Transport branch 2 times, most recently from f5faee3 to 0cf62d1 Compare August 8, 2023 11:38
@He-Pin
Copy link
Member Author

He-Pin commented Aug 28, 2023

@mdedetrich
Copy link
Contributor

mdedetrich commented Aug 28, 2023

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

@He-Pin
Copy link
Member Author

He-Pin commented Aug 28, 2023

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants