Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

2017-07-22 Thread Enrico Olivelli
Il ven 21 lug 2017, 23:02 Michael Han ha scritto: > I am not aware any blockers, but there are a few Netty related issues that > I think we should get them fixed before even considering switch to Netty as > default option, such as ZOOKEEPER-2509. > > >> I don't know the

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

2017-07-21 Thread Michael Han
I am not aware any blockers, but there are a few Netty related issues that I think we should get them fixed before even considering switch to Netty as default option, such as ZOOKEEPER-2509. >> I don't know the history of the netty switch I was not part of history either :) - but I think it's

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

2017-07-20 Thread Enrico Olivelli
Michael, Thank you for your quick response Il gio 20 lug 2017, 19:15 Michael Han ha scritto: > >> Is any plan to move to ClientCnxnSocketNetty but default ? > > The plan was to replace NIO engine. See ZOOKEEPER-733. For some features > (like client-server SSL) it is a

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

2017-07-20 Thread Michael Han
>> Is any plan to move to ClientCnxnSocketNetty but default ? The plan was to replace NIO engine. See ZOOKEEPER-733. For some features (like client-server SSL) it is a requirement to switch to Netty. Netty socket implementation is less mature comparing to NIO (there are bugs reported overtime and