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: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache)
Date Mon, 02 May 2016 15:04:50 GMT
I think Mike meant "Accumulo wasn't following SemVer".

To your question, Mike, per https://accumulo.apache.org/versioning.html

"The Apache Accumulo PMC closed a vote on 2014/12/12 which adopted 
Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 as the reference document"

According to reporter.a.o, 1.7.0 was released 2015/05/15.

I think that means by the time 1.7.0 landed, we were well versed in 
doing semver properly (maybe it was the 1.6 line that wasn't?).

William Slacum wrote:
> 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
View raw message