Hi Dane Do we have a formal consensus about Java version in regards of arrow version ? I agree with the plan but just wondering if it’s ok from everyone with the community.
Regards JB Le jeu. 16 mai 2024 à 18:05, Dane Pitkin <dpit...@apache.org> a écrit : > To wrap up this thread on Java 8 deprecation, here is my current plan of > action: > > 1) Arrow v17 will be the last version supporting Java 8 and the release > notes will warn of its impending deprecation. > 2) Arrow v18 will be the first release supporting min version Java 11. > > I have updated the GH issue[1] to reflect this. > > [1]https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/38051 > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 5:46 PM Dane Pitkin <d...@voltrondata.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Thank you all for your valuable input. The consensus from my > understanding > > is that dropping Java 8 is not contentious, so we will move forward here. > > > > We won't drop Java 11 yet, but there's a chance it will happen sooner > than > > later. I brought up Java 8 & 11 deprecation in the community sync again > > today. The summary is that the ASF could be enforcing stricter security > > practices in the near future. Arrow Java may be forced to drop Java 11 if > > any of its dependencies no longer support Java 11. This is something > we'll > > have to investigate and monitor. When the time is right, we should start > a > > new thread on the mailing list to discuss. > > > > Thanks, > > Dane > > > > On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 2:51 AM <martin.trave...@icloud.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We were originally expecting to keep Java 11 to the 2026 EOL date for > > > extended support, but now that date is moved to 2032 which feels like > > more > > > time than we need. The issue for us is that getting technology approved > > for > > > use in an enterprise can have ridiculously long lead times, so having a > > > minimum supported version that is only 2 years old, while probably ok > in > > > most case, would be a bit aggressive. We use optional dependencies > where > > we > > > can, so e.g. the Java 17 dependency for Spark 4 would only affect > clients > > > using Spark 4, and they could wait to upgrade. But we chose to use > Arrow > > in > > > the core of our product, it is the internal format everything else goes > > > through. On the compliance side we have to keep current with security > > > updates, so there is no option to stick on an old version. > > > > > > If we were to drop Java 11 after the next LTS comes out, i.e. 2025 / > > 2026, > > > then the three latest LTS versions would be supported and the minimum > > > version would have been available for 4 - 5 years. I think it would be > > very > > > hard to argue 17 can’t be made available at that point. If Arrow forces > > our > > > hand then obviously we’ll have to go sooner, but it wouldn’t be ideal > for > > > us. > > > > > > Lastly just on language capabilities, the only things we’re really > > > interested in are performance related, probably virtual threads and > > foreign > > > memory would be the main ones. Both of the those could be optional > > > dependencies, in the case of FFM we’d rely on either yourselves or > Netty > > > anyway to provide an allocator. So in fact there is very little benefit > > for > > > us to drop Java 11 early, all it costs us is one extra CI job. > > > > > > Hope some of this is helpful - apologies for the high latency, busy as > > > always!! > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > On 1 May 2024, at 22:38, Dane Pitkin <d...@voltrondata.com.INVALID> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks, Martin. It's great to hear of real-world use cases. Do you > > > > anticipate any timeline for dropping Java 11 for your product? If > Arrow > > > did > > > > drop Java 11, then it sounds like pinning Arrow Java to an older > > version > > > > wouldn't be an ideal option if security patches are not backported. > > > > > > > > Fokko, can you elaborate on the discussions held in other OSS > projects > > to > > > > drop Java <17? How did they weigh the benefits/drawbacks for dropping > > > both > > > > Java 8 and 11 LTS versions? I'd also be curious if other projects > plan > > to > > > > support older branches with security patches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:14 PM <martin.trave...@icloud.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Speaking for my own product we would like to see Java 11 support, we > > > rely > > > >> heavily on Arrow and have Java 11 as our minimum supported version. > > We’d > > > >> like to keep doing that if possible. Our clients are big enterprises > > > with > > > >> notoriously sluggish update cycles, so we want to offer maximum > > > >> compatibility. Once security patches are no longer available on the > > > regular > > > >> public channels then there is a compliance issue, so we generally > > follow > > > >> the EOL schedule of our dependencies. > > > >> > > > >> Corretto, Adoptium and Zulu all have recent public builds of both 8 > > and > > > 11 > > > >> and look set to support them with public builds for many years to > > come. > > > >> Several organisations I have worked with switched away from Oracle > > when > > > >> they made their licensing blunder with Java 8 and although that is > > > >> rectified now, the change seems to have stuck in quite a few places > > (at > > > >> least in my anecdotal experience). > > > >> > > > >> A major practical difference to me in Java 17 is the strong > > > encapsulation > > > >> of internals. Since that affects the majority of serious Java > > > applications > > > >> then perhaps most people have figured out by now to add the JVM > params > > > that > > > >> let Java continue working. Still, it could be a consideration, if > > > Java17 > > > >> is the baseline supported version. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Martin. > > > >> > > > >> - In case anyone is curious why we don’t support Java 8 per our own > > > >> policy, it’s because of the “var” keyword - seriously, why did Java > > > take so > > > >> long with that, even C++ got there sooner! > > > >> > > > >>> On 30 Apr 2024, at 16:20, Jacob Wujciak <assignu...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hello everyone! > > > >>> Great to see this move forward! > > > >>> +1 on dropping both 8 and 11 unless there is very good reason to > keep > > > 11 > > > >>> around. > > > >>> Otherwise people will just move to 11 and then have the pain of > > > migration > > > >>> again when we drop that (which will happen soon regardless imo). > > > >>> > > > >>> Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 16:18 Uhr schrieb Dane Pitkin > > > >>> <d...@voltrondata.com.invalid>: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Thanks, JB. Are we aware of any downstream dependencies that would > > > >> benefit > > > >>>> from maintaining Java 11 support? Apache Spark jumped straight to > > Java > > > >> 17. > > > >>>> It seems other projects are dropping both 8 and 11 at the same > time > > as > > > >>>> mentioned by Fokko. From a maintenance perspective, it would be > nice > > > to > > > >>>> drop both. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hi > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I think it's time to drop JDK8 support. I would say that we > should > > > >>>>> keep Java11 (jumping directly to Java17 would be problematic > > > >>>>> potentially for some users I guess). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Regards > > > >>>>> JB > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:21 PM James Duong > > > >>>>> <james.du...@improving.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> If we dropped JDK 8, we could use the JDK to compile > > > module-info.java > > > >>>>> files. Then we could remove the custom maven plugin we’re using > for > > > >>>>> compiling module-info.java files for JPMS support and get better > > IDE > > > >>>>> integration (as what we’re doing currently somewhat shoe-horns > > module > > > >>>>> information alongside JDK8 bytecode). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> From: Dane Pitkin <d...@voltrondata.com.INVALID> > > > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 1:02 PM > > > >>>>>> To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org> > > > >>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Drop Java 8 support > > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I would like to revisit the discussion of dropping Java 8 (and > > maybe > > > >>>> 11) > > > >>>>>> from Arrow's Java implementation. See GH issue[1] below. This > was > > > also > > > >>>>>> discussed in the last Arrow community sync meeting on > 2024-04-24. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> For context, this was discussed[2] last year on this mailing > list. > > > We > > > >>>>>> decided to revisit the discussion around the June 2024 release > > > (Arrow > > > >>>>> v17). > > > >>>>>> The timing coincides with the initial release of Apache Spark > > 4.0.0, > > > >>>>> which > > > >>>>>> drops both Java 8 and 11 support. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> For background, we chose not to drop Java 8 support last year > > > because > > > >>>>> Arrow > > > >>>>>> is seen as a low level library that should support as many > > > >> environments > > > >>>>> as > > > >>>>>> possible. Nowadays, we see more enthusiasm for dropping Java 8 > > (and > > > >> 11) > > > >>>>> as > > > >>>>>> exemplified by Apache Spark as well as Apache Iceberg[3]. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Is it time to consider dropping Java 8? Should we drop Java 11 > and > > > >> skip > > > >>>>>> straight to Java 17 as our minimum version? What implications do > > we > > > >>>> need > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>> be aware of? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> Dane > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> [1]https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/38051 > > > >>>>>> [2] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/s07jx58yw4mkl54t3bkggnyg0sftcrr8 > > > >>>>>> [3] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ntrk2thvsg9tdccwd4flsdz9gg743368 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
