accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Date Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:09:30 GMT
-1

There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may 
alienate them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to 
Java 1.7 are based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic 
sugar. Also, not building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep 
people from running with Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built 
against 1.6).

On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related 
issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using 
Accumulo are security minded, this is important.

Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with 
Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't 
believe this is best.

Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to 
justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force 
people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to 
participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7 
provides.

On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
> enough time to address potential concerns".
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All-
>>>
>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>
>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>
>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>
>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>> authentication
>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <ben@sqrrl.com> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sean
>>>>>


Mime
View raw message