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 Fri, 06 May 2016 20:14:37 GMT
Thanks for the info (could've looked it up myself, I'm sure).

If there's anything contentious, let's split out another thread for 
deprecated removals, please. I appreciate you being proactive on this 
already, Christopher.

Mock I think everyone could be in agreement to remove. Aggregators, 
while not really maintained, don't seem like they are something that are 
holding us back or creating more work for us.

In general, we made the JDK8 decision. Let's address other potential 2.0 
changes separately :)

Christopher wrote:
> I intend to remove mock, and other deprecated stuffs (aggregators!) in 2.0.
> But, that's exactly my point. Removing or changing these things required a
> bump in 2.0, so discussions about whether or not we'd need to bump to 2.0
> with the jdk8 switch were moot (unless we were willing to disable
> modernizer, of course).
>
> To Josh's question, unfortunately, modernizer has a fail/no-fail mode, but
> it doesn't allow custom exceptions like findbugs. It's more like checkstyle
> in that way. It's either on or off.
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:11 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> +1 to that, too
>>
>> Dave Marion wrote:
>>> It's 2.0, remove mock and deprecate it in 1.8 if it's not already.
>>> On May 6, 2016 10:25 AM, "Josh Elser"<josh.elser@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>> We can't disable modernizer just for mock? Or really, any code which we
>>> intentionally don't want to modernize?
>>> On May 5, 2016 11:43 PM, "Christopher"<ctubbsii@apache.org>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another interesting point... didn't realize until actually doing it:
>>>> bumping to JDK8 *requires* a bump in the major version, because
>> modernizer
>>>> will block on some incompatible API changes in Mock, which is already
>>>> deprecated. (Unless we're okay with disabling modernizer... which I
>> guess
>>>> is an acceptable solution... but it makes me unhappy :) )
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:39 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks boss. I figured you'd have my back :)
>>>>> On May 5, 2016 9:43 PM, "Christopher"<ctubbsii@apache.org>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Already pushed. Initially forgot about modernizer, but I'm working
>>>>> through
>>>>>> it now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:25 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sounds good!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had tried to switch master to jdk8 as well, but ran into
>>> modernizer
>>>>>>> plugin issues. I've since been on a call, so I haven't been able
to
>>>>> push
>>>>>>> that update. I'll get to it when I can, but perhaps someone has
>>>> beaten
>>>>>>> me to it already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> Okay, so if we're okay treating the master branch as a 2.0
>>>>> development
>>>>>>>> branch, then I'm going to go ahead and start focusing on
some 2.0
>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>> that may involve refactoring which have breaking changes
that I've
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> reluctant to do before without an explicit 2.0 development
branch.
>>>> Of
>>>>>>>> course, none of this says we have to stop development on
1.x
>>>> stuffs,
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> says anything about when we'll release a 2.0, but it'd be
nice to
>>>>> have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> place to start putting in stuff for an eventual 2.0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:07 AM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ok, looks to me that we are in agreement now and don't
need a
>>>> vote.
>>>>>>>>> I will create a 1.8 branch today (updating Jenkins appropriately)
>>>> so
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> can get master in a state that would be ready for the
changes in
>>>>> 4177.
>>>>>>>>> Keith Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think I'd prefer leaving 1.8 as it stands,
with the
>>>> expectation
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> release line of 1.8 which only requires Java
7.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can not see any reason to switch to JDK8 before
releasing
>>>> 1.8...
>>>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>>>> thats going to happen soonish
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can create a 2.0 branch, which bumps the Java
version, and
>>>> can
>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>>>>> changes which require Java 8 or API-breaking
changes (as per
>>>>> semver)
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the next major release line after 1.8.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would put us on a solid roadmap for 2.0
without disrupting
>>>>> 1.8
>>>>>>>>>>> development, which is probably already nearing
release
>>>> readiness.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying, Mike -- I'm
inclined to agree
>>>> with
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't think of a reason why we would upgrade
to Java8 and not
>>>>> make
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it in some way (publicly or privately).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That being said, I don't think I see consensus.
How about we
>>>>>> regroup
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the form of a vote? (normal semver rules
are an invariant --
>>> no
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> to our public API compatibility rules are
implied by the
>>> below)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Call the current 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT (master)
"2.0.0-SNAPSHOT"
>>> and
>>>>>> move
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> jdk8
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Branch 1.8, make master 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT.
1.8 stays jdk7, 2.0
>>>>> goes
>>>>>>> jdk8
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please chime in if I missed another option
or am calling
>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>> soon. It just seems like we might have veered
off-track and I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>> this to fall to the wayside (again) without
decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If our code ends up using java 8 bytecode
in any classes
>>>>> required
>>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer, then I think they will get
compilation (linking?)
>>>>>> errors,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of java 8 types in our methods
signatures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Josh
Elser<
>>>> josh.elser@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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