accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache)
Date Mon, 02 May 2016 22:42:30 GMT
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