accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <wsla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 support (was Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4177) TinyLFU-based BlockCache)
Date Mon, 02 May 2016 18:50:18 GMT
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