I probably should’ve clarified that I don’t believe it would make sense for Pekko to support Akka class names, for a bunch of different reasons. I was mainly trying to convey that there are a lot of other libraries that depend on Akka, so this migration story is something we need to think about.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:31 PM Alexandru Nedelcu <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, I can no longer touch it, as long as it depends on Akka, > because its API assumes usage of actors, and so it's a minefield. I don't > know the future, but if we're taking bets, I'd bet that Play Framework will > fully migrate to Pekko and leave Akka completely behind 🤷♂️ because > that's the only way forward for FOSS projects like it. This is just a > personal opinion of course, but I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that > Play, like Akka, is a hot potato right now for many projects. And the > difference b/w Play and Akka is that for Akka at least you have commercial > development and support available. > I don't see any way that Play would use BSL Akka, but Play, like other libraries, would probably want to support both Akka 2.6 and Pekko for some time to make migration less painful for users. One possible scenario is that Play introduces support for Pekko in a new release series (e.g. 2.10.x) where Pekko is the major breaking change, and continues to support Akka 2.6.x in the previous release series.
