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 Tue, 03 May 2016 20:09:45 GMT
That's a new assertion ("we can't actually use Java 8 features util 
Accumulo-2"), isn't it? We could use new Java 8 features internally 
which would require a minimum of Java 8 and not affect the public API. 
These are related, not mutally exclusive, IMO.

To Shawn's point: introducing Java 8 types/APIs was exactly the point -- 
we got here from ACCUMULO-4177 which does exactly that.

Mike Drob wrote:
> I agree with Shawn's implied statement -- why bother dropping Java 7 in any
> Accumulo 1.x if we can't actually make use of Java 8 features.until
> Accumulo 2.0
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> Right, these are competing and mutually exclusive goals, so we need to
>> decide which is a priority and on what timeline we should transition to
>> Java 8 to support those goals.
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:16 AM Shawn Walker<accumulo@shawn-walker.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure that guaranteeing build-ability under Java 7 would address
>> the
>>> issue that raised this discussion:  We (might) want to add a dependency
>>> which requires Java 8.  Or, following Keith's comment, we might wish to
>>> introduce Java 8 types (e.g. CompletableFuture<T>) into Accumulo's
>> "public"
>>> API.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't feel strongly about this, but I was kind of thinking that we'd
>>> bump
>>>> to Java 8 dependency (opportunistically) when we were ready to develop
>> a
>>>> 2.0 version. But, I'm not opposed to doing it on the 1.8 branch.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:50 PM William Slacum<wslacum@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> So my point about versioning WRT to the Java runtime is more about
>> how
>>>>> there are incompatibilities within the granularity of Java versions
>> we
>>>> talk
>>>>> about (I'm specifically referencing a Kerberos incompatibility within
>>>>> versions of Java 7), so I think that just blanket saying "We support
>>>> Java X
>>>>> or Y" really isn't enough. I personally feel some kind of version
>> bump
>>> is
>>>>> nice to say that something has changed, but until the public API
>> starts
>>>>> exposing Java 8 features, it's a total cop out to say, "Here's all
>>> these
>>>>> bug fixes and some new features, oh by the way upgrade your
>>>> infrastructure
>>>>> because we decided to use a new Java version for an optional
>> feature".
>>>>> The best parallel I can think of is in Scala, where there's no binary
>>>>> compatibility between minor versions (ie, 2.10, 2.11,etc), so there's
>>>>> generally an extra qualifier on libraries marking the scala
>> compability
>>>>> level. Would we ever want to have accumulo-server-1.7-j[7|8]  styled
>>>>> artifacts to signal some general JRE compatibility? It's a total
>> mess,
>>>> but
>>>>> I haven't seen a better solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another idea is we could potentially have some guarantee for Java 7,
>>> such
>>>>> as making sure we can build a distribution using Java 7, but only
>>>>> distribute Java 8 artifacts by default?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sean Busbey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Keith Turner<keith@deenlo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>   On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Sean Busbey<
>> busbey@cloudera.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>   If we drop jdk7 support, I would strongly prefer
a major
>>> version
>>>>>>>>> bump.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Whats the rationale for binding a bump to Accumulo
2.0 with a
>>> bump
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>   JDK version?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The decision to drop JDK6 support happened in latemarch  /
>>> earlyApril
>>>>>>> 2014[1], long before any of our discussions or decisions on
>> semver.
>>>>>>> AFAICT it didn't get discussed again, presumably because by the
>> time
>>>>>>> we got to 1.7.0 RCs it was too far in the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the correction, Sean. I hadn't dug around closely
>> enough.
>

Mime
View raw message