[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17849897#comment-17849897
]
David Smiley commented on ZOOKEEPER-4835:
-----------------------------------------
I attempted to conclusively confirm how viable excluding Netty might be. I
came upon ArchUnit[1] and wrote a little test[2] to look for ZK classes that
don't have Netty in the name yet call such a class or that which call Netty
directly. The results show X509 utilities are intertwined with Netty. And
furthermore the methods ZooKeeper.getClientCnxnSocket and
ZooKeeperServer.getOutstandingHandshakeNum and
UnifiedServerSocket$UnifiedSocket.detectMode() refer to Netty. Thus it seems
not safe to exclude Netty today but if the ZK project wanted to invest in
better separation, it seems close at hand.
[1] ArchUnit: https://www.archunit.org/
[2] my test: https://gist.github.com/dsmiley/8a34cf16dd5827e5396e6da24e19afd2
> Netty should be an optional dependency
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-4835
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4835
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Priority: Major
>
> ZK should not mandate the inclusion of Netty if Netty features aren't being
> used. There are very few usages of Netty from ZK files that are not named
> Netty, so this looks pretty easy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
