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 <freeman.f...@gmail.com> 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
