Yep, the client issue is on my mind. One possibility, and one with the
lowest overhead, is to fork AHC and maintain/evolve as we see fit.
> Daniel Feist <mailto:dfeist_at_gmail.com>
> January 11, 2017 at 16:11
> Ryan,
>
> Right, assumed so. If there are future plans for Grizzly great, but
> need to work out what to do about a decent client, given EOL for
> Grizzly with AHC. Using Grizzly direct is an option of course, but
> not ideal ...
>
> Dan
> Ryan Lubke <mailto:ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
> January 11, 2017 at 15:44
> 2.4 or 3.0. Certainly not for 2.3.
>
>
> Daniel Feist <mailto:dfeist_at_gmail.com>
> January 11, 2017 at 15:43
> Hi Ryan,
>
> We no longer need to support JDK6, but we can't move to JDK8 yet, as
> while our latest versions require JDK8 we are sill need to support
> versions of our product that support JDK7 for the time being.
>
> Were you considering this for a 2.4?
>
> regards,
> Dan
> Ryan Lubke <mailto:ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
> January 11, 2017 at 15:20
> Hey Folks,
>
> I wanted to touch base with the Grizzly community to get an idea of
> what JDK versions everyone is using Grizzly with.
>
> 2.3 is still compatible with 1.6, however, at some point we'll need to
> pull the plug on that compatibility. I'm trying to get a sense of how
> large of a leap we can make.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to transition to 8. What do you guys think?
>
> Thanks,
> -rl