accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dlmar...@comcast.net
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache)
Date Mon, 02 May 2016 15:35:46 GMT
SemVer is about our client API, not the Java client API. 


----- Original Message -----

From: "William Slacum" <wslacum@gmail.com> 
To: "dev" <dev@accumulo.apache.org> 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 10:37:38 AM 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based
BlockCache) 

Kind of hard to pull the semver card when java 1.7 technically isn't semver 
compliant. 

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote: 

> Wasn't 1.7.0 pre SemVer? 
> 
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> > Thanks for the input, Sean. 
> > 
> > Playing devil's advocate: we didn't have a major version bump when we 
> > dropped JDK6 support (in Accumulo-1.7.0). Oracle has EOL'ed java 7 back 
> in 
> > April 2015. Was the 6->7 upgrade different than a 7->8 upgrade? 
> > 
> > 
> > Sean Busbey wrote: 
> > 
> >> If we drop jdk7 support, I would strongly prefer a major version bump. 
> >> 
> >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com> 
> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> Folks -- 
> >>> 
> >>> Let's come up with a plan for Java 8 support. Do we bump minJdk for 
> >>> accumulo-1.8.0 to 8? Should we fork a branch for 1.8 and make master 
> >>> 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT (and do the bump there)? 
> >>> 
> >>> Other approaches? 
> >>> 
> >>> - Josh 
> >>> 
> >>> -------- Original Message -------- 
> >>> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache 
> >>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:06:12 +0000 (UTC) 
> >>> From: Ben Manes (JIRA)<jira@apache.org> 
> >>> Reply-To: jira@apache.org 
> >>> To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> [ 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4177?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15265032#comment-15265032

> >>> ] 
> >>> 
> >>> Ben Manes commented on ACCUMULO-4177: 
> >>> ------------------------------------- 
> >>> 
> >>> I can put something together when Accumulo is ready to accept Java 8 
> >>> patches. Let me know. 
> >>> 
> >>> TinyLFU-based BlockCache 
> >>>> ------------------------ 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Key: ACCUMULO-4177 
> >>>> URL: 
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4177 
> >>>> Project: Accumulo 
> >>>> Issue Type: Improvement 
> >>>> Reporter: Ben Manes 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> [LruBlockCache| 
> >>>> 
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/file/blockfile/cache/LruBlockCache.java

> >>>> ] 
> >>>> appears to be based on HBase's. I currently have a patch being 
> reviewed 
> >>>> in 
> >>>> [HBASE-15560|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15560] that

> >>>> replaces the pseudo Segmented LRU with the TinyLFU eviction policy.

> That 
> >>>> should allow the cache to make [better 
> >>>> predictions|https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine/wiki/Efficiency] 
> >>>> based on 
> >>>> frequency and recency, such as improved scan resistance. The 
> >>>> implementation 
> >>>> uses [Caffeine|https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine], the successor

> to 
> >>>> Guava's cache, to provide concurrency and keep the patch small. 
> >>>> Full details are in the JIRA ticket. I think it should be easy to port

> >>>> if 
> >>>> there is interest. 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA 
> >>> (v6.3.4#6332) 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message