Hello All, A few reflections:
- I don't think that backporting fixes from a JDK 11 only version to a JDK 8 compatible version would be necessarily a harder thing than any regular backport. It kind of depends on us (whether we use many JDK 11 only features or not until we drop JDK 8 from all supported versions). Also if it gets more painful, then we can decide to limit the number of backported commits (e.g. only strictly to security fixes / CVEs) - But even if the above point is true (?), I would not do this cut (e.g. moving entirely to JDK 11 only) in a minor release. I think this should be a major change in 4.0. (maybe together with other more "risky" changes, like the separation of the client and server artifacts/code; or some incompatible changes in the leader election protocol. Although these are separate discussions) - So all-in-all I like the JDK 11 only option the most. But I wouldn't do it in 3.7 (which might happen very soon), but rather in 4.0. The question for me is wether to do any in-between step in 3.x. (like the options 1 or 2 above in Christopher's mail). I think it mainly should depend on the timing of 4.0. Kind regards, Mate On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:05 PM Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > There are three points that stand out for me in this thread: > > - How do we determine how such a change affects our user base? > - How much effort do the different options induce with respect to > maintenance? > - What's the right timeline for changes and how do we communicate them so > that our users have enough time to prepare? > > Someone mentioned a PMC vote, and I don't think this should be a closed > vote, independent of how the conversation goes. > > -Flavio > > > On 22 Oct 2020, at 08:39, Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea > <alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > If I might chime in as a zookeeper user (in multiple products) and a > follower of the project I think the drop of Java8 support (official and/or > unofficial) could be a big mistake. > > > > From my own company point of view we already support Java11 in all our > applications so we are not directly impacted (and we have upgrade path for > older versions to provide to our customers). > > My worries resides in the (high) probability of a userbase > fragmentation: in the recent past Zookeeper development picked up speed > thanks to a bunch of new committers and PMCs after a period of mostly > maintenance focused works, but the number of active committers and PMCs is > still very low for a project like this. > > > > I foresee the risk of spreading thin the resources of the project if we > force the userbase to stick to an older version and, in turn, we are forced > to backport many issue to the 3.6 branch. > > > > Alessandro Luccaroni > > Platform Manager @ Diennea - MagNews > > Tel.: (+39) 0546 066100 Int. 924 - Mob.: (+39) 393 7273519 > > Viale G.Marconi 30/14 - 48018 Faenza (RA) - Italy > > > > -----Messaggio originale----- > > Da: Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > > Inviato: giovedì 22 ottobre 2020 05:21 > > A: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > Oggetto: Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7 > > > > I'm happy that this discussion has been so lively! I just want to > emphasize a few things: > > > > I really do understand the desire to continue to support Java 8... I get > it. But all the conversations around this seem based on what people are > doing *today*. But, ZK 3.7 is *tomorrow's* version... a > > *future* release... so it should be based more on reasonable > expectations for users in the future, and less based on what is happening > today. I suspect *most* people today are still using 3.4 anyway (it was > just so stable for so long...), but that shouldn't mean the developers > should hold back development on 3.5 and 3.6, any more than today's users of > 3.5/3.6 should hold back 3.7. > > > > Some of the opinions expressed in this discussion seem to propose a > scenario where users are going to be updating to "bleeding edge" > > versions of ZooKeeper, but are going to insist on using Java 8. > > Personally, I find this to be implausible. In my experience, people > either upgrade everything as soon as they are able to, or they upgrade each > thing individually, only when they are forced to. The first group will be > happy to move to Java 11 and ZK 3.7. The second group will probably avoid > 3.7 anyway, and are fine sticking with 3.6, but if they had to update to > 3.7, they'd also be fine updating to Java 11 if they had to in order to use > 3.7. I can't imagine the scenario where people are eagerly choosing to > upgrade to ZK 3.7, but miserly insisting on using Java 8. Perhaps that > scenario exists, but it's hard for me to imagine. Even so, my proposal > would still support even that group of people. > > > > I think there are now effectively three proposals being discussed in > this thread: > > > > 1. (Christopher's original proposal) passively support Java 8 at runtime > by making JDK 11 the minimum requirement to build and test. > > This scenario involves continuing to fix bugs, as they are discovered > and reported, that affect JDK 8, but passively, rather than proactively. > This proposal does *not* drop Java 8 support, but merely de-emphasizes it > in development of what will be 3.7 in the future, and drops the requirement > to do dedicated testing with Java 8. I think this is low risk, because it > is very unlikely that the ZK devs would introduce a bug that would affect > only Java 8 and the compiler wouldn't catch it... because the > cross-compilation features of newer JDKs are really good. > > > > 2. (Enrico's alternate proposal) this variation of my proposal would > involve continuing to proactively support Java 8 by creating a dedicated > testing suite to test client code on Java 8. I think this is a good option, > but since it involves a significantly higher amount of work than option 1, > I think the cost-benefit analysis would show this to be not worth the > effort. Also, if it were implemented, it would need to be done carefully to > avoid requiring developers to have concurrently installed both Java 8 and > Java 11 in order to perform a build, because requiring Java 8 at build time > while developing would be worse than we have today. > > > > 3. (Andor's preference) move to JDK 11 fully. This would provide no > support, passive or active, for Java 8 in ZK 3.7. To be honest, this is my > personal favorite, and is the simplest to implement and communicate clearly > to end users in release notes. The only reason I proposed a passive support > of Java 8 instead of this is because I was trying to seek a compromise from > the start. But, I think by far, this is the best option for the next > *future* release of ZK. If you wanted to make the change even more visible > to users, the version could even be bumped to 4.0. > > > > If this were to come to a VOTE by the PMC, in order to make a final > decision, I would recommend they vote on option 3, and then if that fails, > vote on option 1, and if that fails, keep things the way they are (because > option 2 is more work). > > > > Christopher > > > > P.S. as for Hadoop on Java 11... I've been running Hadoop 3 on JDK 11 > and it works just fine there (as long as you add the missing runtime jar > for javax.activation:javax.activation-api:1.2.0 to its class path, but that > was fixed in Hadoop 3.3). > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Tamas Penzes <tam...@cloudera.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I've just talked with a Hadoop/HDFS developer who told me what I > guessed. > >> With Hadoop3 they have just dropped JDK7 support, dropping JDK8 would > >> mean a release of Hadoop4. > >> Since HADOOP-15338 is finished, they test with JDK8 and JDK11 both. As > >> of today most of the Hadoop users are still on Hadoop2, he doesn't > >> expect > >> Hadoop4 soon. > >> As many Apache components depend on Hadoop and ZooKeeper they won't > >> hurry to JDK11 until they have to (they will probably go one-by-one > >> very slowly), which means if Hadoop stays on JDK8, they would use the > >> last ZK version which works on JDK8. > >> Do we want a ZK 3.4 again? > >> > >> Regards, Tamaas > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Tamas Penzes <tam...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> Just to add my two cents. > >>> > >>> Upgrading to JDK11 looks inevitable sooner or later and I would > >>> definitely not wait until 2030 or 2026 when the extended support of > JDK8 ends. > >>> But on the other side I have to agree with Enrico and Patrick that > >>> far too many users are tied to JDK8 yet (not because they want to > >>> use JDK8, but because they have to), some of them are components of > >>> the Hadoop ecosystem, which would be a loss to tie them to 3.6.x for > years. > >>> Do we know the state of Hadoop? It builds with JDK8 at the moment, > >>> but do we know what are their plans to go to JDK11? > >>> When they move, we should move too, but I don't think it would be > >>> wise to do it earlier. > >>> > >>> Christopher's option looks like the golden path, but it needs some > >>> investment on the testing side as Enrico pointed it out. > >>> Could we agree on it as a compromise? > >>> > >>> Regards, Tamaas > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:11 PM Brent <brentwritesc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I think I was reacting to Enrico's earlier comment of: > >>>> > >>>> " ZooKeeper client is used by tons of users and unfortunately many > >>>> projects are still on JDK8, if we move ZooKeeper to JDK11 the risk > >>>> is to block users from the adoption, that is that we will see the > >>>> world to stay on 3.6.x and we will have again a long lived release > >>>> line, like 3.4." > >>>> > >>>> It's a matter of whether or not a long-lived release line is > >>>> desirable/undesirable. If everyone is OK keeping 3.6.x up-to-date > >>>> security/patch-wise (if not feature-wise) for the next N years, > >>>> then that's a potentially valid approach. I interpreted that > >>>> comment as "a long-lived release line is undesirable", but no one > >>>> explicitly said that, I just read it that way. > >>>> > >>>> ~Brent > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:03 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> As far as I know Hbase, Solr and Kafka are already Java 11 ready. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMHO contributors of those projects should also put efforts > >>>>>> into > >>>> moving > >>>>>> forward. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We’re not saying that you _have_ to move to Java 11. > >>>>>> Staying on Java 8? No problem, 3.6 is for you. > >>>>>> Want the fancy new features of 3.7? Work on it on your side too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> ppl want things like security fixes. I believe the highlighted > >>>>> downside > >>>> is > >>>>> that we would need to continue to maintain 3.6.x rather than > >>>>> allowing users, and ourselves, to focus on trunk for production -"64 > percent" > >>>> would > >>>>> be blocked. > >>>>> > >>>>> Patrick > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Andor > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2020. Oct 21., at 17:52, Enrico Olivelli > >>>>>>> <eolive...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Il giorno mer 21 ott 2020 alle ore 17:49 Andor Molnar < > >>>>> an...@apache.org> > >>>>>> ha > >>>>>>> scritto: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Oracle gets paid for extended > support. > >>>>>>>> Java 8 support until 2030 is not free of charge. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "ZK may end up with a lot of users potentially locking > >>>>>>>> themselves > >>>> to > >>>>>>>> 3.6.x for a while as Enrico mentioned." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's true. What's the downside of that which we should > >>>>>>>> invest in > >>>> to > >>>>>>>> avoid? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I see ZooKeeper used in many many projects, all of the > >>>>>>> HBase/Pulsar/Kafka/Solr ecosystem... > >>>>>>> they will have to move to JDK11 in order to move to the new > >>>>>>> ZK > >>>> version > >>>>>>> so probably they will stay on ZK 3.6 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Probably with Java 17 LTS released the cards will change on > >>>>>>> the > >>>> table > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Enrico > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andor > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 08:03 -0700, Brent wrote: > >>>>>>>>> As a slightly different consideration, if you look at the > >>>> Long-Term > >>>>>>>>> Support > >>>>>>>>> (LTS) roadmaps for Java, currently Java 8 is set to have > >>>>>>>>> full > >>>> support > >>>>>>>>> until > >>>>>>>>> 2030 from Oracle and at least 2026 from OpenJDK & Corretto: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap. > >>>>> html > >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My guess is that a number of companies are still heavily > >>>>>>>>> invested > >>>> at > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Java 8 level (I know a few) and with that kind of time > >>>>>>>>> horizon, > >>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>> no real motivation to upgrade for quite a while. If the > >>>>>>>>> recent Python 2 deprecation is anything to go by, they > >>>>>>>>> won't do it until they have to. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not saying Java 8 isn't *very* old (2014 release it seems > >>>>>>>>> like?) > >>>> and > >>>>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>> not invested heavily either way, but this might suggest > >>>>>>>>> that ZK > >>>> may > >>>>>>>>> end up > >>>>>>>>> with a lot of users potentially locking themselves to 3.6.x > >>>>>>>>> for a while as Enrico mentioned. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (Not a major contributor, but wanted to chime in since I > >>>>>>>>> just had this conversation with a bunch of people > >>>>>>>>> professionally recently) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Brent > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:07 AM Andor Molnar > >>>>>>>>> <an...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I still vote for option 1). Move 3.7.0 to JDK 11 fully. > >>>>>>>>>> Other projects will upgrade once they’re JDK11 compliant, > >>>>>>>>>> otherwise they will > >>>> stay > >>>>>>>>>> on 3.5 > >>>>>>>>>> or 3.6. Both version are quite recent in ZooKeeper-terms, > >>>>>>>>>> we already planned big changes for 3.7.0 and JDK 11 could > >>>>>>>>>> be one of them. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Don’t put extra burden on the ZK community to help others > >>>>>>>>>> staying on ancient Java versions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Andor > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2020. Oct 21., at 10:57, Enrico Olivelli < > >>>> eolive...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Let me recap > >>>>>>>>>>> - Christopher is proposing to move to JDK11 > >>>>>>>>>>> - ZooKeeper client and server are bundled and coded and > >>>>>>>>>>> tested together > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> zookeeper-server > >>>>>>>>>>> - Enrico is concerned about the need of testing ZooKeeper > >>>>>>>>>>> client on JDK8 (not a problem to move the server to > >>>>>>>>>>> JDK11) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper client is used by tons of users and > >>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately many projects are still on JDK8, if we move > >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper to JDK11 the risk is to block > >>>>>>>>>> users > >>>>>>>>>>> from the adoption, > >>>>>>>>>>> that is that we will see the world to stay on 3.6.x and > >>>>>>>>>>> we will have > >>>>>>>>>> again > >>>>>>>>>>> a long lived release line, like 3.4. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Testing the client on JDK8 would be possible if we create > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of additional module with system tests, then we > >>>>>>>>>>> can start the > >>>> server > >>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> docker > >>>>>>>>>>> on JDK11+ and start a client on JDK8 with Maven toolchain > >>>>>>>>>>> it should possible to run surefire tests using a separate > >>>>>>>>>>> JVM. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So in my vision 2 options: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1) fully JDK11 - drop JDK8 at all > >>>>>>>>>>> 2) build with JDK11 - server only on JDK11 - add system > >>>>>>>>>>> tests with docker and toolchains that ensure the > >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper client (and all > >>>>>>>>>>> dependencies) > >>>>>>>>>>> still work on JDK8 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view about the ZooKeeper ecosystem > >>>>>>>>>>> option 2) will be far better, but we need resources to > >>>>>>>>>>> work on a new test suite. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Enrico > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Il giorno mer 21 ott 2020 alle ore 10:43 Andor Molnar < > >>>>>>>>>>> an...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>> ha > >>>>>>>>>>> scritto: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tamas, Enrico, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I don’t follow. Why do we have to test the client > >>>>>>>>>>>> with JDK 8 in version 3.7.0? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Andor > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020. Oct 20., at 22:29, Tamas Penzes < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tam...@cloudera.com.INVALID> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Enrico, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating ZooKeeper client and server is a huge work, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but we might not need it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As you mentioned we have to test ZK client with Java 8, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what about separating only the test cases which we need > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to run with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java8 too? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In Curator we have the ZK compatibility tests where we > >>>>>>>>>>>>> run a limited > >>>>>>>>>>>> amount > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Curator's jUnit tests with a different ZK version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We might be able to do the same here, tag tests which > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are testing ZK > >>>>>>>>>>>> client > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and run them separately with Java 8. The only > >>>>>>>>>>>>> limitation is that these tests must stay JDK8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But from the tags we will see which ones are those. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Tamaas > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 7:45 AM Enrico Olivelli < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> eolive...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christopher > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate your idea and I also moved lots of my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects to work > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> way > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are suggesting. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We must run tests using real jdk8 to test the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zookeeper client. We > >>>>>>>>>> must > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure that Zookeeper works well, especially while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dealing with > >>>>>>>>>> security > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently the client is in the same module of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> server and it will > >>>>>>>>>>>> take a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good (huge) amount of work to separate them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enrico > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Il Ven 16 Ott 2020, 23:25 Christopher > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ctubb...@apache.org> ha > >>>>>>>>>> scritto: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi ZK Devs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With recent advancements in Java (since Java 9), it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now generally no longer necessary to require that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software be developed on an older JDK in order to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have confidence that it will run on the older version > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Java. This is because, as of Java 9, all JDK > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases have better support for cross-compilation to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> older Java versions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What this means is that developers can confidently > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make the build requirements for a project higher than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Java version that will actually be supported at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, ZooKeeper already supports the necessary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags in its Maven build configuration to ensure that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it uses JDK 8 compliance when building on a newer JDK > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I added this way back in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZOOKEEPER-3739 / > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1269) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I propose that we make JDK 11 the new minimum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to *build* ZooKeeper with. This would not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the runtime requirement, which would remain at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 8. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only necessary change to make this happen would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be to add the minimum Java version to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-enforcer-plugin (like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/438f0efd34ef9d200bc8c7ecdd1 > >>>> 1d5dedb146519/pom.xml#L1162-L1164 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would allow ZooKeeper to to streamline its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development process a little bit by reducing the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of CI testing that is done as part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build. In other words, we can drop the CI builds for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 8, which saves on build resources and time. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return on investment is so low for the JDK 8 builds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, because of the improved cross-compilation in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newer JDKs. So, there's not much value in building on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK 8 anyway. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I am only recommending this for *new* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release lines, starting with ZooKeeper 3.7.0/master > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch, because I would not want to change > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations for users who will build their own > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 and 3.6 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions as they continue to have patch versions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christopher > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > ________________________________ > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVACY NOTICE > > This e-mail (including any attachments) is strictly confidential and may > also contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient > you are not authorised to read, print, save, process or disclose this > message. If you have received this message by mistake, please inform the > sender immediately and destroy this e-mail, its attachments and any copies. > Any use, distribution, reproduction or disclosure by any person other than > the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and the person responsible > may incur in penalties. > > The use of this e-mail is only for professional purposes; there is no > guarantee that the correspondence towards this e-mail will be read only by > the recipient, because, under certain circumstances, there may be a need to > access this email by third subjects belonging to the Company. > >
