Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

I'll personally would also greatly appreciate if ignite-core is build using (source and target) version of JDK 8. All contributors will be able to write code shorter and more expressively using code Java 8. ср, 4 окт. 2017 г. в 11:55, Yury Babak : > It`s true, now building of ML cause pain beca

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

It`s true, now building of ML cause pain because currently we need excess build of ignite-core using JDK 8. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Yes, have a minimum set at Java 8 (ML contributors would greatly appreciate that...). -- Nikita Ivanov On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > You meant Java 7 drop I guess. That's a good question. Hope this happens > soon. > > Denis > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, Nikita Iva

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

You meant Java 7 drop I guess. That's a good question. Hope this happens soon. Denis On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, Nikita Ivanov wrote: > What about Java 8 to begin with? > > -- > Nikita Ivanov > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Denis Magda > wrote: > > > Eventually now it’s time to put

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

What about Java 8 to begin with? -- Nikita Ivanov On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Eventually now it’s time to put all the doubts aside on when Ignite should > support JDK 9. The JDK is production ready and was released not long time > ago. > > Is there anyone interested t

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Eventually now it’s time to put all the doubts aside on when Ignite should support JDK 9. The JDK is production ready and was released not long time ago. Is there anyone interested to enable JDK 9 for Ignite? — Denis > On Mar 24, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > > Evgenii, > > Thanks

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Evgenii, Thanks for the investigation. Could you update the ticket with all of your findings and suggestions? If you feel you can’t fix it by 2.0 then let’s do it in the next minor release like 2.x. I don’t think that we introduce any breaking compatibilities when JDK 9 support is added later.

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Igniters, I found that maven-war-plugin, that used in ignite-websphere-test doesn't work with java 9. Here is issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MWAR-397.They have workaround with setting MAVEN_OPTS, but this workaround doesn't fit us. 2017-03-24 0:51 GMT+03:00 zixu mo : > > > JB IDEA2

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

JB IDEA2017.1 released, support jdk 9. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 AM +0800, "Anton Vinogradov" wrote: Denis, I'm not sure, but javac usage seems to be not our but IDE "problem". No one call javac directly, AFAIK. So, any --add-exports can be added to wrapping maven, .bat/.sh

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Denis, I'm not sure, but javac usage seems to be not our but IDE "problem". No one call javac directly, AFAIK. So, any --add-exports can be added to wrapping maven, .bat/.sh or IDE settings. I'm pretty sure JB's IDEA will handle this right after Java9 release :) On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM,

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

> For using internal classes that not exported by default, we will need to > add new args(--add-exports) when compiling (javac) *and* when running (java > ). > Is it ok? Anton, are you fine with this approach? — Denis > On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Evgenii Zhuravlev > wrote: > > Denis, > >

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

IMO: 1) sun.misc.PerfCounter usages must be removed 2) sun.misc.Cleaner - either remove, try to switch to DirectByteBuffer or Unsafe.allocateMemory() if possible, or create a wrapper delegating to official Cleaner from Java9. 3) sun.misc.URLClassPath and sun.misc.SharedSecrets - used only in one me

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Denis, I've found that some internal classes like sun.misc.SharedSecrets, sun.misc.URLClassPath, sun.misc.PerfCounter, sun.misc.Cleaner changed their packages. I can create wrapper for this classes with 2 modules, that can be enabled by profiles for java9 and java7-8. For using internal classes th

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Referring to your report only the following API was removed completely. The rest is still deprecated and stowed in special JDK 9 modules. "org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.hadoop.HadoopClassLoader" -> "sun.misc.PerfCounter (JDK internal API (JDK removed internal API))”; "org.apache

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Igniters, There are a few JDK internal APIs removed in JDK 9, that we use in ignite. We need to decide what to do with these dependencies. Here is a list of dependencies after using jdeps 2017-01-26 12:07 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov : > Denis, > > I've created issue

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Denis, I've created issue related to discussion. We have a lot of legacy code inside pom.xml files. One of legacy issues is a tools.jar usage. So, it will be nice to fix this as well. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Well,

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Well, the build fails almost immediately on the latest JDK 9. This is the reason (https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-25993 ). [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project ignite-tools: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.apac

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Vovan, As far as I understand, under the module they mean new component/feature of Java 9 [1]. If you don’t use Java modules then there shouldn’t be any issues at all. In any case, let me try to build the project with JDK 9 that has passed feature complete phase. [1] http://openjdk.java.net/p

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

+1 -- Nikita Ivanov On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Yakov Zhdanov > wrote: > > > Agree. We need to start tests with 9 as soon as possible. > > > > --Yakov > > > > 2017-01-25 16:47 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Ignite

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

+1 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Agree. We need to start tests with 9 as soon as possible. > > --Yakov > > 2017-01-25 16:47 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Igniters, > > > > Please see this article [1] from Kotlin guys. They had to re-pack public > > API because Java

Re: Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Agree. We need to start tests with 9 as soon as possible. --Yakov 2017-01-25 16:47 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > Igniters, > > Please see this article [1] from Kotlin guys. They had to re-pack public > API because Java 9 doesn't allow several modules to share the same public > package. Looks lik

Should we take care of Java 9 in Ignite 2.0 scope?

Igniters, Please see this article [1] from Kotlin guys. They had to re-pack public API because Java 9 doesn't allow several modules to share the same public package. Looks like this limitation could impact us at some point, so that we will not be able to support Java 9 without breaking API changes