Re: [Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

sorry for the multiple emails. Something went wrong on my email provider side. Instead of splitting into two separate threads as its hard keep track of the discussion. We can continue this discussion on users list as it will keep the storm users in the discussion as well. Thanks, Harsha On Fri,

Re: [Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

I concur; staying 1 major GA version behind is a nice idea. There's a limit to what needs to be sacrificed for legacy support... Cheers, A. On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Bobby Evans wrote: > +1 for me too. > > Java 9 is already in early access and is supposed to be GA

Re: [Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

+1 for me too. Java 9 is already in early access and is supposed to be GA fairly soon.  I think the last time we talked about this we decided that staying 1 release of java behind the latest was decent practice, and I still agree. - Bobby On Friday, August 12, 2016 4:56 AM, Satish Duggana

Re: [Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

+1 on moving to Java 8 for 2.x release. As Jungtaek has already mentioned Oracle stopped supporting JDK/JRE 7 since April 2015. Java 8 brings better APIs and it will make our code look better and future user APIs can be designed lot better. Thanks, Satish. On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:11 PM,

Fwd: [Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

I was mistaken the address of user mailing list. Forwarding this to user@. -- Forwarded message - From: Jungtaek Lim Date: 2016년 8월 12일 (금) 오후 6:38 Subject: Re: [Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master To: ,

test

test mail ignore.

[Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

Hi All, Dropping java 7 support on master will allow us to use the new api in Java 8 and since the master is being used for java migration its good to make the decision now. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Harsha

Re: STORM REBALACING

Hi. Thank you for replies. Now, it worked. 2. second, you should make sure your topology has been assigned more than 10 task. because the rebalacing is based on the task to do more workers. If you did not assigne 10 tasks(at least) to the topology explicitly, the rebalancing can not work out as

Re: STORM REBALACING

I have one more question. Based on some tests, some workers totally shut down and re-run, which means each task lost all the data. Some workers do not shut down and are resumed after rebalance, which means each task keeps the data. So, I assume Storm has some capabilities to distinguish them

Re: Thrift Access Logger - How to set log level in local mode?

Anybody? How do you configure log levels in local mode, please point me to the right place to look, thanks. Jonas On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Jonas Krauß wrote: > Looking further in the source code of storm I found that actually this > logging is hard-coded as