Silence probably means 'yes', so I start the vote now. *Shall we upgrade the minimum required Java version to compile and run ZooKeeper on 3.5 and master branches to Java 1.8?*
*Yes / No* I vote for 'Yes'. Regards, Andor On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com> wrote: > From the responses on 'user' list, I think we are good to go. > > What do you think? > > Andor > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Okay, I dropped a mail on the user list to get some feedback. >> >> >> Regards, >> Andor >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps discuss on the user list as Flavio mentioned prior to calling a >>> vote? Has anyone looked at dependencies, is this consistent with what the >>> rest of the ecosystem has defined. Hadoop/Hbase/Kafka/... components, >>> Curator, etc... >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Is everybody happy with the plan that Tamaas suggested? >>> > Shall we start a vote? >>> > >>> > Andor >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Mark Fenes <mfe...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi All, >>> > > >>> > > I totally support the idea of upgrading to Java 8 and I agree with >>> Abe >>> > that >>> > > we should not require different minimum versions of Java for the >>> client >>> > and >>> > > the server. >>> > > Also skipping the non-LTS versions sounds reasonable. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Mark >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Tamás Pénzes <tam...@cloudera.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Hi All, >>> > > > >>> > > > Just to add my 2 cents. // Might be five, I write long. :) >>> > > > Hope, you find valuable bits. >>> > > > >>> > > > As many of us I also hope that ZooKeeper 3.5 will be released soon. >>> > > > Until then most of the changes go into master and branch-3.5 too, >>> so I >>> > > > would keep them on the same Java version for code compatibility. >>> In the >>> > > > same time I'd be happy if it was Java 8. >>> > > > >>> > > > ZK 3.5+ supports Java 7 since December 2014, an almost 7 year old >>> Java >>> > > > version today. >>> > > > It was a perfect decision in 2014, when nobody expected ZK 3.5 >>> coming >>> > so >>> > > > late, but things might be different four years later. >>> > > > >>> > > > Since we have to keep compatibility with Java 6 on branch-3.4 we >>> > already >>> > > > need manual changes when cherry picking into that branch. Not much >>> > > > difference if branch-3.5 is Java 8. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > As Flavio said changing branch-3.5 to Java 8 might cause issues for >>> > users >>> > > > already using ZK 3.5.x-beta. >>> > > > I totally agree with that concern, but using a beta state software >>> > means >>> > > > you accept the risk of facing changes. >>> > > > And Java 8 is four years old now, so we would not change to >>> bleeding >>> > > edge, >>> > > > which I guess nobody wanted. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > So what I would propose is the following: >>> > > > >>> > > > - Upgrade branches "master" and "branch-3.5" to Java 8 (LTS) >>> asap. >>> > > > - After releasing 3.5 GA and the next LTS Java version (Java 11 >>> / >>> > > > 18.9-LTS) gets released upgrade "master" branch to Java 11-LTS. >>> ( >>> > > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html) >>> > > > - I would not upgrade Java to a non-LTS version. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > What do you think about it? >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks, Tamaas >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org >>> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I'm fine with moving to Java 8 or even 9 in 3.6. Does anyone >>> have a >>> > > > > different option? Otherwise, should we start a vote? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -Flavio >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > On 16 Feb 2018, at 21:28, Abraham Fine <af...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I'm a -1 on requiring different minimum versions of java for >>> the >>> > > client >>> > > > > and the server. I think this has the potential to create a lot >>> of >>> > > > > confusion for users and contributors. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I would support moving master (3.6) to java 8, I also think it >>> is >>> > > worth >>> > > > > considering moving to java 9. Given how long our release cycle >>> tends >>> > to >>> > > > be >>> > > > > I think targeting the latest and greatest this early in the >>> > development >>> > > > > cycle is reasonable. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks, >>> > > > > > Abe >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018, at 06:48, Enrico Olivelli wrote: >>> > > > > >> 2018-02-16 14:20 GMT+01:00 Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com>: >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >>> +1 for setting the Java8 requirement on server side. >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> *Client side.* >>> > > > > >>> I'd like the idea of the setting the requirement on client >>> side >>> > too >>> > > > > without >>> > > > > >>> introducing anything Java8 specific. I'm not planning to use >>> > Java8 >>> > > > > features >>> > > > > >>> right on, just thinking of opening the gates would be useful >>> in >>> > the >>> > > > > long >>> > > > > >>> run. >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> Additionally, I don't see heavy development on the client >>> side. >>> > > Users >>> > > > > who >>> > > > > >>> are tightly coupled to Java7 are still able to use existing >>> > clients >>> > > > as >>> > > > > long >>> > > > > >>> as we introduce something breaking which they're forced to >>> > upgrade >>> > > to >>> > > > > for >>> > > > > >>> whatever reason. I'm not sure what are the odds of that to >>> > happen. >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> My two cents >>> > > > > >> Actually ZooKeeper is distributed as a single JAR which >>> contains >>> > > both >>> > > > > >> server and client side code, requiring Java 7 for the client >>> and >>> > > Java >>> > > > 8 >>> > > > > for >>> > > > > >> the server will require a new way of packaging the artifacts >>> and >>> > > > > building >>> > > > > >> the project (and this will require separating client side and >>> > server >>> > > > > side >>> > > > > >> code base). >>> > > > > >> Maybe I am missing something. >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> Enrico >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> Andor >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Flavio Junqueira < >>> > f...@apache.org >>> > > > >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>>> We have this section in the admin doc that talks about the >>> > system >>> > > > > >>>> requirements: >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.5.3-beta/zookeeperAdmin >>> . >>> > > > html#sc_ >>> > > > > >>>> requiredSoftware <https://zookeeper.apache.org/ >>> doc/r3.5.3-beta/ >>> > > > > >>>> zookeeperAdmin.html#sc_requiredSoftware> >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> If we change, then we have to update that section. >>> Specifically >>> > > > about >>> > > > > >>>> client and server, I'd think that there is no problem with >>> > > requiring >>> > > > > >>> Java 8 >>> > > > > >>>> on the server. The potential concern is with the client as >>> it >>> > > > affects >>> > > > > >>>> applications that build against it. It would be best to not >>> > force >>> > > > > >>>> applications to upgrade themselves. Looking at the >>> compatibility >>> > > > guide >>> > > > > >>> for >>> > > > > >>>> Java 8: >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/8- >>> > > > > >>>> compatibility-guide-2156366.html <http://www.oracle.com/ >>> > > > > >>>> technetwork/java/javase/8-compatibility-guide-2156366.html> >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> The risk is that an application is strictly using Java 7 >>> because >>> > > of >>> > > > > some >>> > > > > >>>> incompatibility listed in that guide, in which case, it >>> wouldn't >>> > > be >>> > > > > able >>> > > > > >>> to >>> > > > > >>>> compile the ZK client assuming we get it to use some Java 8 >>> > > > construct. >>> > > > > >>> One >>> > > > > >>>> option is that we raise the requirement to Java 8, but we >>> do no >>> > > > really >>> > > > > >>>> introduce anything that breaks compatibility for the next >>> > version. >>> > > > > Users >>> > > > > >>>> should take this as a warning that they need to migrate to >>> Java >>> > 8. >>> > > > I'm >>> > > > > >>> not >>> > > > > >>>> sure this makes the situation any better, though. Another >>> option >>> > > is >>> > > > > that >>> > > > > >>> we >>> > > > > >>>> set a release to be the one in which we migrate and let >>> everyone >>> > > > know >>> > > > > >>> that >>> > > > > >>>> they need to migrate. >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> -Flavio >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> On 16 Feb 2018, at 12:05, Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com >>> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> Hi all, >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> I think it would be nice to draw a line at branch-3.5 and >>> > target >>> > > > Java >>> > > > > >>>>> version 8 onwards. It seems to be a good opportunity for >>> the >>> > > > upgrade >>> > > > > >>>> before >>> > > > > >>>>> we release a stable version of 3.5. >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> The benefit would be the ability to use new features of >>> Java 8 >>> > in >>> > > > the >>> > > > > >>>> code: >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> Do think it's feasible? >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> Regards, >>> > > > > >>>>> Andor >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > >>> > > > *Tamás **Pénzes* | Engineering Manager >>> > > > e. tam...@cloudera.com >>> > > > cloudera.com <http://www.cloudera.com/> >>> > > > >>> > > > [image: Cloudera] <http://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> >>> > > > ------------------------------ >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
