+1

Craig J. Swift
Principal Software Engineer - Data Pipeline
ReturnPath Inc.
Work: 303-999-3220 Cell: 720-560-7038

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Henry Cai <h...@pinterest.com.invalid>
wrote:

> +1 for Lambda expression.
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Rajiv Kurian <ra...@signalfx.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would like to start a discussion on making Java 8 a minimum
> requirement
> > > for Kafka's next feature release (let's say Kafka 0.10.1.0 for now).
> This
> > > is the first discussion on the topic so the idea is to understand how
> > > people feel about it. If people feel it's too soon, then we can pick up
> > the
> > > conversation again after Kafka 0.10.1.0. If the feedback is mostly
> > > positive, I will start a vote thread.
> > >
> > > Let's start with some dates. Java 7 hasn't received public updates
> since
> > > April 2015[1], Java 8 was released in March 2014[2] and Java 9 is
> > scheduled
> > > to be released in March 2017[3].
> > >
> > > The first argument for dropping support for Java 7 is that the last
> > public
> > > release by Oracle contains a large number of known security
> > > vulnerabilities. The effectiveness of Kafka's security features is
> > reduced
> > > if the underlying runtime is not itself secure.
> > >
> > > The second argument for moving to Java 8 is that it adds a number of
> > > compelling features:
> > >
> > > * Lambda expressions and method references (particularly useful for the
> > > Kafka Streams DSL)
> > > * Default methods (very useful for maintaining compatibility when
> adding
> > > methods to interfaces)
> > > * java.util.stream (helpful for making collection transformations more
> > > concise)
> > > * Lots of improvements to java.util.concurrent (CompletableFuture,
> > > DoubleAdder, DoubleAccumulator, StampedLock, LongAdder,
> LongAccumulator)
> > > * Other nice things: SplittableRandom, Optional (and many others I have
> > not
> > > mentioned)
> > >
> > > The third argument is that it will simplify our testing matrix, we
> won't
> > > have to test with Java 7 any longer (this is particularly useful for
> > system
> > > tests that take hours to run). It will also make it easier to support
> > Scala
> > > 2.12, which requires Java 8.
> > >
> > > The fourth argument is that many other open-source projects have taken
> > the
> > > leap already. Examples are Cassandra[4], Lucene[5], Akka[6], Hadoop
> 3[7],
> > > Jetty[8], Eclipse[9], IntelliJ[10] and many others[11]. Even Android
> will
> > > support Java 8 in the next version (although it will take a while
> before
> > > most phones will use that version sadly). This reduces (but does not
> > > eliminate) the chance that we would be the first project that would
> > cause a
> > > user to consider a Java upgrade.
> > >
> > > The main argument for not making the change is that a reasonable number
> > of
> > > users may still be using Java 7 by the time Kafka 0.10.1.0 is released.
> > > More specifically, we care about the subset who would be able to
> upgrade
> > to
> > > Kafka 0.10.1.0, but would not be able to upgrade the Java version. It
> > would
> > > be great if we could quantify this in some way.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > [1] https://java.com/en/download/faq/java_7.xml
> > > [2] https://blogs.oracle.com/thejavatutorials/entry/jdk_8_is_released
> > > [3] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/
> > > [4] https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/README.asc
> > > [5]
> https://lucene.apache.org/#highlights-of-this-lucene-release-include
> > > [6] http://akka.io/news/2015/09/30/akka-2.4.0-released.html
> > > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11858
> > > [8] https://webtide.com/jetty-9-3-features/
> > > [9] http://markmail.org/message/l7s276y3xkga2eqf
> > > [10]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://intellij-support.jetbrains.com/hc/en-us/articles/206544879-Selecting-the-JDK-version-the-IDE-will-run-under
> > > [11] http://markmail.org/message/l7s276y3xkga2eqf
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to