+1 to this idea, haven't seen Jetty 8 in while in many projects, Jetty 9
would be a way to go I think ....
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> We have several issues(like CXF-7160 and CXF-7179) recently which is
> caused by Jetty9 & Jetty8 API imcompatible, though we should be able to
> handle this by reflection on CXF 3.1.x, for the coming CXF 3.2 how about
> we support Jetty9(drop Jetty8 support) only? This can relieve some burden
> supporting both Jetty8 & Jetty9 in CXF http-jetty transport.
>
> A couple of more reasons CXF 3.2 should support Jetty 9 only
> 1. Jetty8 was EOL at end of 2014 and no further work on jetty 8
> 2. benchmark showed Jetty9 is 30% faster than Jetty8 on server side due to
> the big changes in IO layers
> 3. Jetty community strongly suggest to use Jetty9
> 4. pax-web support Jetty9 for a long time, so align the jetty version
> seems more reasonable.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
> －－－－－－－－－－－－－
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>
>
>
>
