When we did this on HBase, a lot of the Jetty facing code had to be updated. We did not attempt to have code that works with either version, but I got the impression that Jetty 9.4 and 12.0 are not API compatible. (I was only involved as a reviewer)
My guess is that we'd have to factor out the Jetty facing code into a separate module and duplicate it, add profiles, etc. This would also affect the server uberjar, which would also have to be duplicated. I haven't checked if we use any Jetty code in the client libraries, if we do that may also be affected. In other word, it would be quite a lot of work and added complexity. What is the plan for bumping the minimum requirement to Java 17 in the main Calcite codebase ? Istvan On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:44 PM Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > Is multi-version compatibility an option? By which I mean, do we use > any APIs that have been changed/removed since Jetty 9.4. > > If so, people on Java 8 could continue to use Jetty 9.4, and people on > Java 17+ could upgrade to Jetty 12. The default Jetty version would be > the latest, but we would give instructions on how to use an earlier > Jetty version, and continue to test Java 8. > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:23 AM Istvan Toth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The limitation is Java 8 compatibility. > > > > Upgrading to Jetty 12 means bumping the minimum supported Java supported > > version to 17, so this discussion is basically about how long to maintain > > Java 8 compatibility. > > > > Jetty 9.4 is kind of EOL, there are usually updates for security issues, > > but there are no formal guarantees for that. > > > > I think that this thread is the ideal forum for this discussion. > > > > Istvan > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 6:55 PM Lucas Capistrant < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I’m looking into the current Jetty dependency in Calcite Avatica, > which is > > > still on Jetty 9 (EOL), and wanted to reach out to the community to > discuss > > > the potential for upgrading to Jetty 12. > > > > > > In general, I’d like to - > > > > > > 1. Ask if there’s been any prior discussion or dev work on upgrading to > > > Jetty 12 > > > > > > 2. Gauge interest and alignment in moving to Jetty 12. Would creating a > > > Jira for deeper discussion be the right next step? > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts. > > > > > > Best, > > > Lucas Capistrant > > > > > > > > > -- > > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > > *Email*: [email protected] > > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> > > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera > > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > -- *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer *Email*: [email protected] cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
