I believe there was agreement on this matter, so +1 On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Sandeep More <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when compiled > against Java 7. > We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main > pom.xml IMO. > > Best, > Sandeep > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
