Stuck on an issue?
Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
[Netty 5] Future Generics cleanup / simplification
See original GitHub issueThe generic type parameters for Futures should be investigated and fixed. For example the generic parameter on GenericFutureListener are overly complicated and make effective usage of the generic parameters difficult without a subtype of Future.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:5 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Netty 5 Migration Guide
To simplify the API and type-hierarchy we decided to remove the ChannelFuture / ChannelPromise (and all it sub-types / implementations) completely. As a ......
Read more >Reactor 3 Reference Guide - Project Reactor
Netty's ByteBuf is a prime example of both. In order to ensure proper cleanup of such objects, you need to account for it...
Read more >RESTEasy JAX-RS - JBoss.org
RESTEasy WADL support for Netty Container; 54.4. ... Clearly, future and unpatched WildFly distributions might differ a bit in terms of modules enabled...
Read more >Apache Solr Release Notes
txt file for additional, low level, changes in this release. Versions of Major Components (5).
Read more >Table of contents - Micronaut Documentation
To use the HTTP server you must have the http-server-netty dependency on your classpath. Gradle Maven. implementation("io.micronaut:micronaut- ...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
I think we definitely need to have a result type as we also want to use our futures for example in
DnsNameResolveretc.Considering #8516, if we end up not having
ChannelFuture, then I think we won’t need to ever abstract over the implementation ofFuture. They should just all behave the same. And then we’ll only generalise over the result type.