incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:34:02 GMT
Thanks Alex.  Checking on the impact




Sent from Samsung tablet

Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com> wrote:
Sudha,

I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1421 and assigned it to Kelven.

I don't believe we will have any difficulty running against the 1.7 JRE.  Just need a quick
test to make sure.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:14 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Huang
> Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang; Kelven Yang
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version
>
> However, can you confirm that none of the features depend on JRE and the
> impact is low if we use 1.7.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:09 PM
> To: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang; Kelven Yang
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version
>
> I have been reviewing this mail thread to see the impact.  So far we haven't
> used 1.7 but if this is confirmed then we will include it in the matrix to be
> covered
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:51 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang; Sudha Ponnaganti; Kelven Yang
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version
>
> John,
>
> I hate to see us disagree if even our agreements are violent!  :) (he he...I
> know what violent agreement means but just couldn't resist.)
>
> The reason I brought this up is that Wido said in the original message that 4.1
> now no longer compiles under 1.6 and must use 1.7 to compile.  That we've
> gotta fix.
>
> I cced Sudha so she can plan to test with JRE 7.
> I cced Kelven because it's his IPC code that causes this problem with 1.6.
>
> I've gotta say that I've been running with 1.7 and so far no problems.  So I
> don't really expect problems.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:43 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > I think we are in violent agreement.  I am only advocating for a build
> > tested on JRE7, and listed as officially supported in our docs.  Using
> > the Java7 features is a completely different discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > On Feb 26, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Alex Huang <alex.huang@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 That's exactly what I said in my reply as well.  Support for
> > > +Java7 means
> > we test with JRE7 in 4.1 but support for Java7 does not mean we should
> > push for deprecating JRE6 support.
> > >
> > > --Alex
> > >
> > > From: Noa Resare [mailto:noa@spotify.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:35 PM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: Frank Zhang; Alex Huang
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version
> > >
> > > java 6 may be end-of-line'd by Oracle, but the OpenJDK is shipping
> > > as part
> > of the enterprise distributions and as such will be supported in i.e.
> > Debian Wheezy for at least years into the future.
> > >
> > > I'm not talking about not supporting java 7, the java ecosystem has
> > traditionally been very good at supporting code targeting
> > current_version - 1, but I propose we avoid using language features
> > and quirks that break java 6 compatibility.
> > >
> > > /n
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM, John Burwell
> > <jburwell@basho.com<mailto:jburwell@basho.com>> wrote:
> > > Noa,
> > >
> > > I think of one very good reason -- as of this month, Java6 has been
> > > EOL'ed
> > [1] by Oracle (i.e. no more updates).  Given the number of security
> > issues that have cropped in Java lately, it seems prudent, in my mind,
> > to ensure that the next release runs on an officially supported JRE.
> > Also, OpenJDK 7 is widely available for modern distributions (see
> > openjdk-7 packages in Ubuntu
> > 12.04 and java-1.7.0-openjdk in RHEL/CentOS 6.3).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > > [1]: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
> > > On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Noa Resare
> > <noa@spotify.com<mailto:noa@spotify.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Unless someone comes with a very good argument to drop java 6
> > >> compatibility (and make a good case for it in in public and gather
> > >> consensus) I would consider this a bug that needs to be fixed.
> > >>
> > >> /noa
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Chip Childers
> > <chip.childers@sungard.com<mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com>>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I didn't think that we agreed to bumping the java version to 7,
> > >>> and it seems like that might make working with distros / packages
> difficult.
> > >>>
> > >>> Adding Alex and Frank to the CC to get their take.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:23:39PM +0100, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So the last couple of days the master branch wouldn't build on
my
> > >>> systems:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - IPC .................
> > >>>> FAILURE
> > >>> [1.874s]
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> [INFO]
> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> --
> > >>> ----
> > >>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> > >>>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:2.5.1:compile
> > >>>> (default-compile) on project cloud-framework-ipc: Compilation
> > >>>> failure: Compilation failure:
> > >>>> [ERROR]
> > >>>
> >
> /home/employee/wido/repos/cloudstack/framework/ipc/src/org/apache/cl
> > >>> oudstack/framework/rpc/RpcServerCallImpl.java:[51,58]
> > >>>> type parameters of <T>T cannot be determined; no unique maximal
> > >>>> instance exists for type variable T with upper bounds
> > >>>> T,java.lang.Object [ERROR]
> > >>>
> >
> /home/employee/wido/repos/cloudstack/framework/ipc/src/org/apache/cl
> > >>> oudstack/framework/rpc/RpcClientCallImpl.java:[191,60]
> > >>>> type parameters of <T>T cannot be determined; no unique maximal
> > >>>> instance exists for type variable T with upper bounds
> > >>>> T,java.lang.Object
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So I'm running Ubuntu 12.04.1 on all my systems (laptop, desktop,
> > >>>> servers) and this is the maven information:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wido@wido-desktop:~$ mvn -v
> > >>>> Apache Maven 3.0.4
> > >>>> Maven home: /usr/share/maven
> > >>>> Java version: 1.6.0_27, vendor: Sun Microsystems Inc.
> > >>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-amd64/jre
> > >>>> Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8 OS name: "linux",
> > >>>> version: "3.2.0-38-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
> > >>> "unix"
> > >>>> wido@wido-desktop:~$
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now, that Java version is old, I know, but it's the openjdk
> > >>>> version which is in Ubuntu 12.04's repositories right now.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I downloaded Java 7:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wido@wido-
> > desktop:~/repos/cloudstack$ JAVA_HOME="/opt/jdk1.7.0_15"
> > >>>> mvn
> > >>> -v
> > >>>> Apache Maven 3.0.4
> > >>>> Maven home: /usr/share/maven
> > >>>> Java version: 1.7.0_15, vendor: Oracle Corporation Java home:
> > >>>> /opt/jdk1.7.0_15/jre Default locale: en_US, platform encoding:
> > >>>> UTF-8 OS name: "linux", version: "3.2.0-38-generic", arch:
> > >>>> "amd64",
> > >>>> family:
> > >>> "unix"
> > >>>> wido@wido-desktop:~/repos/cloudstack$
> > >>>>
> > >>>> With that Java version the master branch builds just fine.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What I want to discuss which version of Java we support.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd say we support the LTS version of any major release of CentOS
> > >>>> or
> > >>> Ubuntu.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I also understand that Java 6 is pretty old, so what do we do?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Wido
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Engineering Experience, Infrastructure tribe, Spotify
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Engineering Experience, Infrastructure tribe, Spotify
> > >


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message