I did a poll on reddit and get the result of [image: image.png] 何品
kerr <[email protected]> 于2023年8月6日周日 00:33写道： > > Is it really worth spending any time to support classic remoting? Users > would be better served to switch to Artery. > > I'm one of the user and the China Scala User group may not talk much on > web but most of us is using the netty transport, even Lightbend say the > `Artery is the best`. > > Another online product with large scale nodes(here) is running with Akka > 2.4.x with the classic transport, and Flink is using the netty.tpc > transport at least for now too. > > I think the community can choose when they migrate the nodes to artery is > essential, especially when otherwise your cluster need a hard reboot. > > AFAIK, the Artery transport is not wire compatible with the classic one. > > I suggest: > 1. Start to send PRs to open sources projects like Flink with the help for > migrating to the artery transport. > 2. Upgrade to the new version of Netty for bugfix and better performance. > 3. Suggest all the new community move to the Artery transport. > > Even Akka was removed it in Akka 2.8.x not Akka 2.7.x. > > Anyway, different company has different requirements, that just my 2 cents. > > 何品 > > > PJ Fanning <[email protected]> 于2023年8月2日周三 17:29写道： > >> This will end up in a vote. >> >> For me, we shipped 1.0.x. Users who don't want big changes can use >> that version. We can agree to support 1.0.x with critical fixes. >> >> We can now start improving the code for the improvement release >> (v1.1.x or v2.0.x). Improvements include getting rid of deprecated >> code and most of us appear to believe that classic remoting is long >> deprecated. >> >> >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 09:51, Matthew de Detrich >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Is it really worth spending any time to support classic remoting? >> Users >> > would be better served to switch to Artery. >> > >> > That depends on what you mean by "support". If agreed on, I would >> > propose marking classic remoting as "to be removed" which would >> > also mean that the code wouldn't be touched (i.e. no feature >> > changes and no bug fixes unless extremely critical). >> > >> > I am in no way suggesting that we support remoting in a traditional >> sense >> > and again the only reason why I am even contemplating this is because >> > of the CVE's. >> > >> > > I don't think it is likely that a significant portion of Akka 2.4 >> users >> > would update to Pekko any time soon if the couldn't update to Akka >> 2.5/2.6. >> > >> > I also had this impression but it's already come up a few times that >> > people still use Akka 2.4.x. They likely haven't bothered updating >> > because they didn't see a need to (quite famously Akka is quite stable >> > and there are cases of companies using it for years without needing to >> > update, as stated by Lightbend's CEO) but with the license change >> > it created a catalyst/trigger for some users to consider moving to >> Pekko. >> > >> > On this note I would also be wary in making assumptions on what versions >> > of Akka people happen to be using. As a corollary in the discussion on >> > dropping JDK 8, when we suggested that we quite quickly got feedback >> that >> > there are people still using JDK 8. And while I know all of the >> arguments >> > that you really should not be using JDK 8 can be carried over to Akka. >> > >> > Admittedly it's quite hard to get good feedback on what versions people >> are >> > using, just saying we should be a bit more careful in making these >> > assumptions. >> > After all, people are still using JDK 8 ;) >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 10:19 AM Nicolas Vollmar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Akka 2.4 has been EoL since end of 2017. >> > > I don't think it is likely that a significant portion of Akka 2.4 >> users >> > > would update to Pekko any time soon if the couldn't update to Akka >> 2.5/2.6. >> > > >> > > Is it really worth spending any time to support classic remoting? >> Users >> > > would be better served to switch to Artery. >> > > >> > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 10:04, Matthew de Detrich >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > > If you manage to move to Pekko and were still using classic >> remoting, >> > > > it's likely you are still on Akka 2.4 or 2.5. If you manage the >> update >> > > > to Pekko, going to Artery TCP is a small step. >> > > > >> > > > One of the reasons why I was saying this is that I was under the >> > > impression >> > > > that there are a non-trivial amount of users still on Akka 2.4 (not >> sure >> > > > why >> > > > this is the case but kerr was telling me this). >> > > > >> > > > > If people are interested in keeping it around and also opt in to >> > > > maintaining it (which in the first place means, making the tests for >> > > > it work *now*), than fine, but otherwise, being able to use it on >> > > > 1.0.x is already a big benefit. >> > > > >> > > > Since classic remoting is currently using Netty 3 which has CVE's >> > > > I don't think it's wise to encourage people that still happen to be >> > > > using classic remoting to stay on 1.0.x. If it wasn't for final >> > > > version of netty 3 having CVE's then I would have no qualms >> > > > for dropping it in the 1.1.x series (in fact if there was a >> > > > hypothetical netty 3 without CVE's we would have already >> > > > updated to it in the 1.0.x series and dropped classic remoting in >> > > > 1.1.x without a heartbeat). >> > > > >> > > > I would propose that if we do accept keeping classic remoting >> > > > and updating to Netty 4, we would mark the feature to be >> > > > dropped in 1.2.x and aside from that Netty 4 upgrade that >> > > > part of code would be untouched unless there are critical >> > > > bugs/regressions. >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 1:38 PM Johannes Rudolph < >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > We definitely should remove it for 1.1.x. There's no technical >> reason >> > > > > to keep it because the newer artery TCP transport just supersedes >> it. >> > > > > As discussed before, the problem with keeping old features around >> is >> > > > > "death by a thousand cuts". The classic remoting backend is the >> prime >> > > > > example of it because it is basically unmaintained for years and >> > > > > there's basically no expert knowledge available about how to >> maintain >> > > > > it or how to fix the existing bugs. Testing remoting backends has >> > > > > shown to be very complicated and often unreliable and being able >> to >> > > > > remove this particular component from the test matrix will be a >> huge >> > > > > improvement. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:28 PM Matthew de Detrich >> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > I would prefer adding in netty 4 support for the classic >> transport >> > > > > > mechanism because it gives >> > > > > > people an upgrade path while allowing them to resolve the CVE >> issues. >> > > > If >> > > > > > Pekko 1.1.x didn't >> > > > > > support the classic transport mechanism then it forces Pekko >> users to >> > > > be >> > > > > > stuck on 1.0.x >> > > > > > with no easy upgrade path. >> > > > > >> > > > > We are not responsible for giving people an easy upgrade path when >> > > > > they were stuck on features like classic remoting which has >> basically >> > > > > been outdated for years. It is very important that, going forward, >> > > > > that we focus our attention on the most important features and >> make >> > > > > sure to not get stuck in maintaining old parts that we cannot (or >> > > > > don't want to) care for. >> > > > > >> > > > > If people are interested in keeping it around and also opt in to >> > > > > maintaining it (which in the first place means, making the tests >> for >> > > > > it work *now*), than fine, but otherwise, being able to use it on >> > > > > 1.0.x is already a big benefit. >> > > > > >> > > > > Apart from that the update path is pretty clear: >> > > > > * move to Pekko 1.0.x >> > > > > * move to Arterty TCP >> > > > > * move to Pekko 1.1.x >> > > > > >> > > > > If you manage to move to Pekko and were still using classic >> remoting, >> > > > > it's likely you are still on Akka 2.4 or 2.5. If you manage the >> update >> > > > > to Pekko, going to Artery TCP is a small step. >> > > > > >> > > > > Johannes >> > > > > >> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > Matthew de Detrich >> > > > >> > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >> > > > >> > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >> > > > >> > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >> > > > >> > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >> > > > >> > > > *m:* +491603708037 >> > > > >> > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Matthew de Detrich >> > >> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >> > >> > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >> > >> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >> > >> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >> > >> > *m:* +491603708037 >> > >> > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>
