accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Walker <accum...@shawn-walker.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache)
Date Tue, 03 May 2016 13:16:01 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message