That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes back-porting would be a pain I agree.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sandeep - > > This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly. > I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add > Java 8 specifics. > > I would propose that we should limit this use to new features. > This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that > community members need to continue to support. > > I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things > just because we can. > > It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we > won't catch them all. > But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change > if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it. > > That's my thoughts on it anyway... > > thanks, > > --larry > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from >> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds. >> >> Best, >> Sandeep >> >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> -- >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> All - >>> >>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 >>> in >>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in >>> upgrading >>> to Java 8. >>> >>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not >>> sufficiently >>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer >>> being >>> conservative. :) >>> >>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have >>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular >>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place >>> anyway. >>> >>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which >>> have >>> features that we would benefit from. >>> >>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a >>> flag. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> --larry >>> >>> >>> >> >
