There aren't many such libraries, but there are a few. When faced with one of those dependencies that still doesn't go beyond 2.10, you essentially have the choice of taking on the maintenance burden to bring the library up to date, or you do what is potentially a fairly larger refactoring to use an alternative but well-maintained library.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kostas Sakellis <kos...@cloudera.com> wrote: > In addition, with Spark 2.0, we are throwing away binary compatibility > anyways so user applications will have to be recompiled. > > The only argument I can see is for libraries that have already been built > on Scala 2.10 that are no longer being maintained. How big of an issue do > we think that is? > > Kostas > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: >> > Actually it's *way* harder to upgrade Scala from 2.10 to 2.11, than >> > upgrading the JVM runtime from 7 to 8, because Scala 2.10 and 2.11 are >> not >> > binary compatible, whereas JVM 7 and 8 are binary compatible except >> certain >> > esoteric cases. >> >> True, but ask anyone who manages a large cluster how long it would >> take them to upgrade the jdk across their cluster and validate all >> their applications and everything... binary compatibility is a tiny >> drop in that bucket. >> >> -- >> Marcelo >> > >
