Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider using netty #92

Open
eswdd opened this issue Dec 3, 2014 · 2 comments
Open

Consider using netty #92

eswdd opened this issue Dec 3, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@eswdd
Copy link
Contributor

eswdd commented Dec 3, 2014

In theory could combine jetty and socket transports into a single unified transport..

Is supposedly faster than mina and is async all throughout.

@richardqd
Copy link
Contributor

Could we drop hessian at the same time? Perf/correctness wins the day here!

On 3 December 2014 at 14:30, Simon Matic Langford [email protected]
wrote:

In theory could combine jetty and socket transports into a single unified
transport..

Is supposedly faster than mina and is async all throughout.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#92.

@eswdd
Copy link
Contributor Author

eswdd commented Dec 3, 2014

was planning to add a pluggable serialisation mechanism as part #61 which would in theory allow us to prefer non-hessian where available on both sides.

the challenge of switching netty for mina is maintaining compatibility during the switch - unless we support both for a period with a breaking change on the transport, which is less preferable i think.

I reckon we'd have to do something a bit cleverer around how we test the binary transport and compatibility before doing that - produce a test binary with each version which could be run on future versions for example.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants