I can submit a PR for upgrading the 1.1.x to netty 4, if it's acceptable. And based on Netty v4 will not harm and have better performance, lower gc pressure and better thread model.
何品 PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> 于2023年8月1日周二 03:29写道： > Just for clarity, Pekko 1.0.x will be maintained for a while and the > existing classic remote solution (that uses Netty 3) is supported > there. > > It is only for Pekko 1.1.x where we are considering whether to drop > the classic remote solution and keep just the Artery solution. It is > also an option to keep the Netty based alternative implementation but > switch it to use Netty 4. > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 20:06, kerr <hepin1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The classic transport lack the dedicated channel for bigger messages and > > internal system messages , and depends on netty v3 which have CVEs. > > But there are projects depend on it and use the old transport. do you > think > > instead of the remove it, but update it to netty 4 will help? > > > > I implemented a netty 4 based transport once when I was work for a game > > company, will not be much hard to migrate to netty 4. > > > > 何品 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > >
