+1 for both. I would be still against actually allowing Java 8 specific code since people may want to backport fixes to old releases which might still use Java 7. Allowing Java-8 exclusive features may make this process complicated. Lambdas are cute, but we can do without them for a while. It would be good to have some automatic enforcement so that Java8 features do not leak in accidentally.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Na Li <lina...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 for moving to datanucleus 4 and Java 8 > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > There is a JIRA request (SENTRY-1893 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-1893>) looking to add > > support > > for JDK8 and make it as the default and minimum JDK version to use. JDK7 > > has reached the end of life, and many other Apache components (including > > Hive 2.1) have already switched to JDK8 as the minimum version. > > > > I would like to use this email thread to discuss if we should follow this > > trend and switch to JDK8 on our current Sentry 2.0 development. Moving to > > JDK8 will also allow us to use the new API that brings, such as lambda > > functions. > > > > Also, in order to support JDK8, we should switch to Datanucleus 4 because > > Datanucleus 3 have some problems with it. Datanucleus 3 is also old, and > > other components already switched to version 4 as well. We already have > > support for version 4, so the question here is if we should drop > > Datanucleus 3 support and just use version 4 as the default. > > > > Sentry 2.0 is our current major version development, so it makes sense to > > do this move in this version. > > > > What do you all think? > > > > - Sergio > > >
