Hi folks,

JDK 17 patch is ready to be merged from CI’s perspective.
Could we have some more eyeballs on the patch before merging it?

https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2376

Thanks,
Andor




> On May 28, 2026, at 04:21, Dávid Paksy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Many thanks for the feedback so far, I implemented it.
> 
> Can you please review https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2376
> 
> Many thanks in advance,
> Dávid
> 
> Andor Molnár <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. máj. 11., H,
> 19:42):
> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> Please take a look at the patch:
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2376
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Andor
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 11, 2026, at 02:46, Dávid Paksy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Thanks everyone for your responses!
>>> 
>>> I now raised the #2376 PR for the JDK17 / JDK25 support on master.
>>> If you can please have a look and provide feedback.
>>> 
>>> Many thanks in advance,
>>> Dávid
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Andor Molnár <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. máj. 5., K,
>> 17:41):
>>> 
>>>> This should be that:
>>>> 
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-5038
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 5, 2026, at 04:09, Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Il Lun 4 Mag 2026, 22:15 Lari Hotari <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm just wondering if we could first decouple the code that uses Jetty
>>>> from
>>>>>> zookeeper-server.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I added this comment to ZOOKEEPER-5038:
>>>>>> =====
>>>>>> Since the recurring blocker for upgrading Jetty is the Java baseline
>>>> (Jetty
>>>>>> 12 requires Java 17, while ZooKeeper still supports Java 8/11), it
>>>> would be
>>>>>> useful to decouple the HTTP admin server from zookeeper-server
>> entirely.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Concretely, the org.apache.zookeeper.server.admin package could be
>> moved
>>>>>> out of the zookeeper-server module into a new, separate module — for
>>>>>> example zookeeper-server-http-admin. The rest of ZooKeeper would keep
>>>> its
>>>>>> current Java 8/11 compatibility, and only this optional module would
>>>>>> require Java 17 (and pull in Jetty 12).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To avoid a hard compile-time dependency from zookeeper-server on the
>> new
>>>>>> module, the admin server could be loaded via reflection at runtime
>> when
>>>> it
>>>>>> is enabled in the configuration. That way users on older JDKs simply
>>>> don't
>>>>>> enable the HTTP admin server, while users on Java 17+ get a fully
>>>>>> maintained Jetty.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This would also let the Jetty upgrade proceed independently of the
>>>> broader
>>>>>> Java baseline discussion.
>>>>>> =====
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would this make sense?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's create a JIRA, we should make this change before cutting the next
>>>>> release
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Enrico
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Lari
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 May 2026 at 22:50, Andor Molnár <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Absolutely. That’s actually my original intention for the JDK 17
>>>> upgrade.
>>>>>>> We should definitely upgrade to Jetty 12 once the JDK upgraded
>> landed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for the heads-up.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Andor
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On May 4, 2026, at 05:39, Lari Hotari <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'd like to raise a point related to the discussion about
>> ZooKeeper's
>>>>>>>> minimum supported Java version.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jetty 9.x is end-of-life and no longer receives OSS security
>> updates.
>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>> are unaddressed CVEs that affect the 9.4.x line:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> - CVE-2026-2332 (High) – HTTP request smuggling via chunked
>> extension
>>>>>>>> parsing; affects Jetty <= 9.4.59. Fixed in 9.4.60.
>>>>>>>> - CVE-2025-11143 (Low) – differential URI parsing that can lead to
>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>> bypass; affects Jetty <= 9.4.58. Fixed in 9.4.59.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The catch is that 9.4.59 and 9.4.60 are only available to customers
>>>>>>> paying
>>>>>>>> for commercial support (e.g. Webtide/HeroDevs NES). OSS projects can
>>>> no
>>>>>>>> longer obtain security fixes for Jetty 9.x through Maven Central.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The supported community line is Jetty 12.x, which requires Java 17
>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> baseline.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In Apache Pulsar, we've had to carry a fairly invasive workaround to
>>>>>>>> upgrade to Jetty 12.x while still depending on ZooKeeper: we patch /
>>>>>>> shadow
>>>>>>>> the relevant Pulsar-side integration classes (the equivalents of
>>>>>>>> org.apache.zookeeper.server.admin and
>>>>>>>> org.apache.zookeeper.metrics.prometheus) so Pulsar can run on Jetty
>>>>>> 12.x
>>>>>>>> even though ZooKeeper still pulls in Jetty 9.x. We'd very much like
>> to
>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>> this hack, but that requires ZooKeeper itself to move off Jetty 9.x.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Given that Jetty 12.x requires Java 17, raising ZooKeeper's Java
>>>>>> baseline
>>>>>>>> to 17 would unblock the Jetty upgrade and close the CVE exposure for
>>>>>>>> downstream OSS users at the same time. Would the project consider
>>>> tying
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Java 17 baseline discussion to a Jetty 12 migration on the same
>>>> release
>>>>>>>> line?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Happy to help with the migration work if there's interest.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Lari
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 at 02:14, Andor Molnár <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I’m trying to extract the relevant information from the thread for
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>> Previously I wrote something like:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> “… we could make a leap and make JDK 17 the minimum runtime and
>>>>>> compile
>>>>>>>>> versions for the master branch.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Once the change is merged to master, we'll backport it to
>> branch-3.9
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * minimum JDK for building: 17
>>>>>>>>> * minimum JRE for running: 8 (no change) “
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As far as I know, that’s what we agreed on, but unfortunately, no
>> one
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> been willing to create a PR for it since then. Are you happy to
>> work
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Andor
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2026, at 13:12, Andor Molnár <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, your efforts are much appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. At the moment we still support Java 8 on all active branches.
>>>>>>>>>> There’s only one exception: Owasp build process requires Java 11
>> to
>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There was a bunch of discussions [1] and [2] recently regarding
>> how
>>>>>>>>> should we
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade and which JDK versions should we support on our branches.
>>>> You
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>> want to review them before going forward.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/42537mr70g3n8srzxg406xlssbcsqr7w
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/ng8gq261ts5znzt6wb3zgjwqpsoqfftv
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Andor
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2026, at 07:57, Dávid Paksy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi ZooKeeper devs,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I started to work on JDK25 support in ZooKeeper. The compilation
>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>> fine
>>>>>>>>>>> but for the tests to work I created ZOOKEEPER-5039 to upgrade
>>>>>> Mockito
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> 5.23.0.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I put up #2376 PR and I saw, the GH: Action builds at the moment
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>> using Java 8 and Java 11.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Mockito 5.x requires Java 11 or higher. It will not work with
>> Java
>>>>>> 8.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mockito 4.x supported Java 8 but Mockito 4.x does not support
>> Java
>>>>>> 25.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have to support Java 8 on ZooKeeper master branch? I did
>> not
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>> any documentation regarding this.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>>>>> Dávid
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to