You are right, Russell. We should make a clear migration path, so our EclipseLink users are able to easily transition off on EclipseLink. I know that this has come up before [1]. Let me investigate a few options on what guidance we can give or what tooling we can produce.
[1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1875 Cheers, Adam On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 3:49 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > We have two migration tools: > > * > https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/tree/main/iceberg-catalog-migrator > > * https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/tree/main/polaris-synchronizer > > I'm pretty confident that iceberg-catalog-migrator works well, but it can > only migrate tables, not principals. > > I never personally used polaris-synchronizer, still it's supposed to > migrate all Polaris data, including principals. > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 3:13 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > +1 I think removing EclipseLink should happen soon now that we have 2 > > releases with it deprecated. I have > > looked too deeply into this but do we have a migration plan for users > > already on EclipseLink to get over to the > > JDBC Impl? > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:53 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for bringing this issue up, Adam! > > > > > > I support removing EclipseLink code immediately. > > > > > > My rationale: > > > > > > * Due to EclipseLink deprecation, non-trivial new features are not > > > necessarily implemented there [1] > > > > > > * Any new bugs reported for EclipseLink are not likely to get attention > > > because this backend is in decline. > > > > > > * Users had better migrate to a supported backend earlier. If migration > > is > > > deferred, it will likely mean that any issues related to migration will > > > take even longer to be found. > > > > > > * Polaris 1.1.0 still has EclipseLink, which offers users a supported > > > version where critical issues could still be fixed, if they are found. > > > > > > * Having EclipseLink in the codebase adds overhead for new features > that > > > touch Persistence. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2197/files#diff-59a870c7af1578200236f22d35fd2eb75dc2a1e73e51218464eb7ba089217da7R759 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:27 PM Adam Christian < > > > adam.christian.softw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Howdy Polaris Community! > > > > > > > > I was going through our open bugs and I noticed that there are > around 5 > > > to > > > > 10 bugs related to EclipseLink persistence. I was wondering when we > > > > believe a good time to remove EclipseLink would be. > > > > > > > > Personally, I think we could probably start doing it now since it's > > been > > > > deprecated since 1.0.0 and we have a clear alternative. I believe > there > > > are > > > > several pros for our users such as streamlined documentation and > > benefits > > > > to the contributors such as less issues, dependencies, and modules. > > > > > > > > How do y'all feel about this? > > > > > > > > If we are aligned, I can create the issue and start working on it. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >
