Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mdrob@mdrob.com designates
 209.85.128.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51AFC52A.3000400@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAL5zq9YsiTkVhJgJ6Zzn-AYYNGq_xuQeFWXRT6AEaAxpUBacHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51AD04E7.3080906@gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6JJ5RTFNXsvgLYT8FDBjO2ZxDi-myzDYDPmSfZH9AAWKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<007001ce60be$00817560$01846020$@comcast.net>
	<51AD3D5C.60008@gmail.com>
	<CAKbot4hvp8AOBu0M42YGdiSwo9sfJ7fjxvbn2Gzw3=Bm9c-HWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6LS5FtrJN1L0e39iRETm0GGVRC8-uOdUULzWzwOe4muLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADczPYSGRXX4UtvibY8XfYWUSV+-Z-4Z_4D7BGAidHt8AqmeXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9Zf19uvJZSv1Gh_CnszfpL+ete4tSGU2LRwgqcWHFvXow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADczPYTcOTa6A8qdOPeT+wRoFmv_AurbrR6oa9ap1b7ixE1j0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9Y09ZsxCeWeWR35t=WJYj1nfHggN911+ue=OrJju9FCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51AFC52A.3000400@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 19:25:32 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAJRvFdq+ZaRmimN7AiOhGmu4TWcs4Y8G_c+iShQwbFvjpDKB8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
From: Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d94889c154304de708376

--047d7b6d94889c154304de708376
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I think building the binary release using 1.7, but still maintaining 1.6
compatibility is a nice compromise. You're providing enough of a carrot to
use 1.7 (hey look, we already built it for you), but you're not alienating
the users that still need 1.6 classes for whatever reason. If something
like this were to be implemented, then it would be necessary to provide
very clear documentation on how to run Accumulo on different JREs.


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> -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<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<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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>

--047d7b6d94889c154304de708376--