hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: jdk 1.7 & trunk
Date Fri, 27 Jun 2014 01:45:03 GMT
That's certainly a possibility. With JDK6U45 everything works. 
And I have stepped on HBASE-11418 ;(

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> 0.98 compiles using the recent version of Java 6, 6u45. I think there was a
> compiler bug wrt type erasure introduced somewhere in the middle of that
> lineage that could still be in OpenJDK. In any case, please see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1110?focusedCommentId=14044099&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14044099
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Try compiling with Oracle Java 6. Same result ?
> >
> > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Back in time of JDK6 GA - when I was still working in Sun's JDK team -
> > we had
> > > companies sitting on 1.4 and paying _a lot_ of money for Sun support of
> > it.
> > > So...
> > >
> > > That said, I think moving to JDK7 is pretty much has happened already for
> > > HBase, because e.g. 0.98.2 can not be build with JDK6 because we see
> > >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8479
> > > in Bigtop CI.
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > >> Er, I mean no user should be running on a runtime less than 7, they are
> > all
> > >> EOL...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Should we be 1.7 only for trunk / 1.0?
> > >>>> This would mean using the 1.7 features.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this is prudent. Hadoop common is having a similar discussion
> > and
> > >>> I think converging on consensus that they would be ok with their trunk
> > >>> including features only available in 7.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> What about .98?
> > >>>
> > >>> ​I don't think this is an option, because although no user should
be
> > >>> running with a 7 runtime (and in fact performance conscious users
> > should be
> > >>> looking hard at 8), vendors will still have to support customers on
6.
> > ​
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>>
> > >>>   - Andy
> > >>>
> > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > >>> (via Tom White)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>   - Andy
> > >>
> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > >> (via Tom White)
> >

Mime
View raw message