+1 for dropping Java 11. Is it considered EOL by most vendors.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 7:25 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the feedback on JDK 25. It should not be tied to the > decision of dropping JDK 11 support. We can add it whenever the upstream > blockers are resolved. > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:13 PM Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Moving to JDK 17+ is indeed a good thing, JDK 17 is a de facto new baseline >> for modern Java stacks, it was adopted by Maven, Gradle, Spring, Spark, >> Jackson3 and many popular Java projects as the minimal supported Java >> version. >> >> For JDK 25, I think the bigdata projects are majorly blocked by Hadoop >> (currently the Hadoop UGI does not work on JDK 23+ due to JDK >> SecurityManager changes), the fixes already landed in Hadoop trunk branch, >> and suppose to be ported to branch-3.4, the next version Hadoop 3.4.3 will >> unlock this. >> >> Thanks, >> Cheng Pan >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2025, at 13:55, Manu Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm encountering several issues with JDK 11, which prompted me to remove it >> in the PR mentioned by Kevin. >> >> 1. Stuck with ORC-1.9.x which had CVE[1] and low release cadence >> 2. Upcoming Spark 4.1 can no longer target JDK11[2] >> 3. Upgrade to datafusion-comet 0.11.0 failed[3], although it has set JDK11 >> as target. >> >> Hence, I also support dropping Java 11, and we don't need workarounds here >> and there. >> >>> We will still have 3 LTS releases (17, 21, 25) after dropping Java 11. >> >> I don't think we can have JDK25 till Spark, Flink and other dependencies >> support it >> >>> what does that make the minimum supported spark version >> >> That will be Spark 3.4 or Spark 3.5 if we drop 3.4 in 1.11 as well. >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/14391 >> [2] >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14155/commits/53bc376e5bf71a8f802c28186de943aff01d27bc#diff-5392a130b5f4f17e365379befee19dd4105817da777df9b8699b5e5704ce4d68R54 >> [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14591 >> >> Regards, >> Manu >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for starting the convo, JB. >>> >>> I'm in favor of dropping Java 11 support. >>> I see Manu has started a draft PR to remove java 11 [1]. This gives a good >>> overview of the current places where java 11 is used. >>> >>> Depending on the scope of the work, I think we can also target the next >>> Iceberg release (1.11). >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin Liu >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14400/files >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 12:28 PM Steve Loughran <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> JDK25 is fairly traumatic security-API wise; not of direct relevance to >>>> iceberg AFAIK. >>>> >>>> With a minimum of java17, what does that make the minimum supported spark >>>> version (i.e what version of spark supports java17?) >>>> >>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 at 06:51, Eduard Tudenhöfner >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would also be in favor of moving to JDK 17 but we need to check what >>>>> the implications are. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 5:36 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, the Flink benchmark shouldn't be a blocker, as the 1.20 module >>>>>> itself can be built and run with Java 17. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am in favor of dropping Java 11 support. We probably can also add Java >>>>>> 25 to the CI build after dropping Java 11, as JDK 25 (LTS) was released >>>>>> on Sep 25. We will still have 3 LTS releases (17, 21, 25) after dropping >>>>>> Java 11. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tend to be a bit more aggressive in dropping old versions. Let's see >>>>>> what others think. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I worked on the Gradle 9.x upgrade for Iceberg. Gradle 9.2.x requires >>>>>>> JDK17 minimum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did a quick pass on Iceberg modules, I see all modules support JDK17. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a known issue with JDK 17 in the Flink 1.20 module for a >>>>>>> specific benchmark. The comment in >>>>>>> flink/v1.20/flink/src/jmh/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/sink/shuffle/StatisticsRecordSerializerBenchmark.java. >>>>>>> This benchmark in 1.20 only works with Java 11 probably due to usage >>>>>>> of ArraysAsListSerializer in FlinkChillPackageRegistrar. Flink 2.0 and >>>>>>> above switched to DefaultSerializers#ArraysAsListSerializer in Kryo >>>>>>> 5.6. >>>>>>> Using Java 17 would result in the following error..."This affects only >>>>>>> that JMH benchmark, not the entire Flink 1.20 module. The module can >>>>>>> still be built and run with JDK 17; the benchmark has a runtime issue >>>>>>> due to Java module access restrictions. >>>>>>> I think we can live with that, waiting to remove Flink 1.20 in the >>>>>>> future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to start a discussion to define JDK17 min >>>>>>> in Iceberg. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NB: if we have a consensus, I would be happy to start an >>>>>>> update/cleanup PR and prepare the next "major" release with JDK17 min. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >> >>
