On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > "On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related > issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo > are security minded, this is important." > > Redhat has actually stepped in and is continuing support for java 1.6, so > this issue is covered. >
Thats interesting. Until 1.6, there was major java release every one or two years. Then there was almost 5 years between 1.6 and 1.7. Given that 1.6 was the only game in town for such a long period I maybe it has more inertia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > -1 > > > > There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate > > them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7 > are > > based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not > > building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running > with > > Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6). > > > > On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related > > issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo > > are security minded, this is important. > > > > Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with > > Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't > > believe this is best. > > > > Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to > > justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force > > people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to > > participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7 > > provides. > > > > > > On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote: > > > >> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do > >> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more > >> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's > >> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not > >> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not > >> enough time to address potential concerns". > >> > >> -- > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> All- > >>>> > >>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java > >>>> dependency to >=1.7. > >>>> > >>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the > >>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the > >>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a > >>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to > >>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of > >>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant > >>>> to come to a concrete opinion. > >>>> > >>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0. > >>>> > >>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to > >>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos > >>>>> > >>>> authentication > >>>> > >>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on > the > >>>>> Accumulo implementation as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <b...@sqrrl.com> wrote: > >>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/** > >>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Requirements-and-** > >>>> Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_**topic_3.html< > http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html > > > >>>> > >>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/** > >>>> cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/**CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_** > >>>> topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_**c1n_bln_tj_unique_1< > http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1 > > > >>>> > >>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Sean > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >
