On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Not trying to critisize your netty decision. One thing I have found > about netty is has been version incompatasble between releases. We use > hornetq with netty transports (built in) it was vey frustrating that > the netty protocol was not compatible between hq 2.0 and 2.1, meaning > our options were to upgrade all our software and hq at one time, or > switch to the jms transport which made little sense because we chose > hq and netty because of how fast and efficient it was via netty. > well, netty is an IO library so it has no "protocol" as such, though it does _provide_ certain codec and handler implementations that you can use. indeed, I am making use of a couple of the codecs in my application, but the codecs are so trivial (if you look at the source of the varint-encoder/decoder and the protobuf-stuff, it isn't really complex or big at all) that just maintaining my own implementation wouldn't be much of a problem. (which I might decide to do now that you have given me a heads up. thanks for that! :-) ) hmm, or did you talk about API breakage? -Bjørn -- Bjørn Borud <bbo...@gmail.com> +47 920 46465
