Re: CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
I need to get WSS4J 2.2.0 out first, as CXF master depends on a SNAPSHOT. I only have one more thing to look at for that (signed MTOM support) and so I hope to get it out before the end of January. Colm. On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Hope it can be released at around the end of January, may be a couple of > weeks later. > > Sergey > On 22/12/16 14:54, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> Btw, what's the ETA for CXF 3.2 ? >> >> 2016-12-22 14:30 GMT+01:00 Daniel Kulp : >> >> >>> I’d be fine with that. Everyone has pretty much moved on from the Karaf >>> 2.x versions that only have Jetty8. As long as we can support the Jetty >>> version in Karaf 4.0.x, I’m fine. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Freeman Fang >>> 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 >>> -- >>> Daniel Kulp >>> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
Re: CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
Hope it can be released at around the end of January, may be a couple of weeks later. Sergey On 22/12/16 14:54, Guillaume Nodet wrote: Btw, what's the ETA for CXF 3.2 ? 2016-12-22 14:30 GMT+01:00 Daniel Kulp : I’d be fine with that. Everyone has pretty much moved on from the Karaf 2.x versions that only have Jetty8. As long as we can support the Jetty version in Karaf 4.0.x, I’m fine. Dan On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Freeman Fang 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 -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
+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 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 > > > >
Re: CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
Btw, what's the ETA for CXF 3.2 ? 2016-12-22 14:30 GMT+01:00 Daniel Kulp : > > I’d be fine with that. Everyone has pretty much moved on from the Karaf > 2.x versions that only have Jetty8. As long as we can support the Jetty > version in Karaf 4.0.x, I’m fine. > > Dan > > > > On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Freeman Fang > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > -- Guillaume Nodet Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: gno...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
Re: CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
+1. As long as karaf 4.0.x isn't impacted, I'm cool with this. On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:30 AM Daniel Kulp wrote: I’d be fine with that. Everyone has pretty much moved on from the Karaf 2.x versions that only have Jetty8. As long as we can support the Jetty version in Karaf 4.0.x, I’m fine. Dan > On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Freeman Fang 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 > > > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
I’d be fine with that. Everyone has pretty much moved on from the Karaf 2.x versions that only have Jetty8. As long as we can support the Jetty version in Karaf 4.0.x, I’m fine. Dan > On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Freeman Fang 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 > > > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
CXF 3.2 support jetty9 only (drop jetty8 support)
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
