accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache)
Date Tue, 03 May 2016 18:40:05 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message