Sudha, I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1421 and assigned it to Kelven.
I don't believe we will have any difficulty running against the 1.7 JRE. Just need a quick test to make sure. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudha Ponnaganti > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:14 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Huang > Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang; Kelven Yang > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version > > However, can you confirm that none of the features depend on JRE and the > impact is low if we use 1.7. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:09 PM > To: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang; Kelven Yang > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version > > I have been reviewing this mail thread to see the impact. So far we haven't > used 1.7 but if this is confirmed then we will include it in the matrix to be > covered > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Huang > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:51 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang; Sudha Ponnaganti; Kelven Yang > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version > > John, > > I hate to see us disagree if even our agreements are violent! :) (he he...I > know what violent agreement means but just couldn't resist.) > > The reason I brought this up is that Wido said in the original message that > 4.1 > now no longer compiles under 1.6 and must use 1.7 to compile. That we've > gotta fix. > > I cced Sudha so she can plan to test with JRE 7. > I cced Kelven because it's his IPC code that causes this problem with 1.6. > > I've gotta say that I've been running with 1.7 and so far no problems. So I > don't really expect problems. > > --Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:43 PM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: Noa Resare; Frank Zhang > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version > > > > Alex, > > > > I think we are in violent agreement. I am only advocating for a build > > tested on JRE7, and listed as officially supported in our docs. Using > > the Java7 features is a completely different discussion. > > > > Thanks, > > -John > > > > On Feb 26, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 That's exactly what I said in my reply as well. Support for > > > +Java7 means > > we test with JRE7 in 4.1 but support for Java7 does not mean we should > > push for deprecating JRE6 support. > > > > > > --Alex > > > > > > From: Noa Resare [mailto:n...@spotify.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:35 PM > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Cc: Frank Zhang; Alex Huang > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Supported Java version > > > > > > java 6 may be end-of-line'd by Oracle, but the OpenJDK is shipping > > > as part > > of the enterprise distributions and as such will be supported in i.e. > > Debian Wheezy for at least years into the future. > > > > > > I'm not talking about not supporting java 7, the java ecosystem has > > traditionally been very good at supporting code targeting > > current_version - 1, but I propose we avoid using language features > > and quirks that break java 6 compatibility. > > > > > > /n > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM, John Burwell > > <jburw...@basho.com<mailto:jburw...@basho.com>> wrote: > > > Noa, > > > > > > I think of one very good reason -- as of this month, Java6 has been > > > EOL'ed > > [1] by Oracle (i.e. no more updates). Given the number of security > > issues that have cropped in Java lately, it seems prudent, in my mind, > > to ensure that the next release runs on an officially supported JRE. > > Also, OpenJDK 7 is widely available for modern distributions (see > > openjdk-7 packages in Ubuntu > > 12.04 and java-1.7.0-openjdk in RHEL/CentOS 6.3). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -John > > > > > > [1]: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html > > > On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Noa Resare > > <n...@spotify.com<mailto:n...@spotify.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> Unless someone comes with a very good argument to drop java 6 > > >> compatibility (and make a good case for it in in public and gather > > >> consensus) I would consider this a bug that needs to be fixed. > > >> > > >> /noa > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Chip Childers > > <chip.child...@sungard.com<mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com>>wrote: > > >> > > >>> I didn't think that we agreed to bumping the java version to 7, > > >>> and it seems like that might make working with distros / packages > difficult. > > >>> > > >>> Adding Alex and Frank to the CC to get their take. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:23:39PM +0100, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> So the last couple of days the master branch wouldn't build on my > > >>> systems: > > >>>> > > >>>> [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - IPC ................. > > >>>> FAILURE > > >>> [1.874s] > > >>>> ... > > >>>> ... > > >>>> [INFO] > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> -- > > >>> ---- > > >>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal > > >>>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:2.5.1:compile > > >>>> (default-compile) on project cloud-framework-ipc: Compilation > > >>>> failure: Compilation failure: > > >>>> [ERROR] > > >>> > > > /home/employee/wido/repos/cloudstack/framework/ipc/src/org/apache/cl > > >>> oudstack/framework/rpc/RpcServerCallImpl.java:[51,58] > > >>>> type parameters of <T>T cannot be determined; no unique maximal > > >>>> instance exists for type variable T with upper bounds > > >>>> T,java.lang.Object [ERROR] > > >>> > > > /home/employee/wido/repos/cloudstack/framework/ipc/src/org/apache/cl > > >>> oudstack/framework/rpc/RpcClientCallImpl.java:[191,60] > > >>>> type parameters of <T>T cannot be determined; no unique maximal > > >>>> instance exists for type variable T with upper bounds > > >>>> T,java.lang.Object > > >>>> > > >>>> So I'm running Ubuntu 12.04.1 on all my systems (laptop, desktop, > > >>>> servers) and this is the maven information: > > >>>> > > >>>> wido@wido-desktop:~$ mvn -v > > >>>> Apache Maven 3.0.4 > > >>>> Maven home: /usr/share/maven > > >>>> Java version: 1.6.0_27, vendor: Sun Microsystems Inc. > > >>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-amd64/jre > > >>>> Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8 OS name: "linux", > > >>>> version: "3.2.0-38-generic", arch: "amd64", family: > > >>> "unix" > > >>>> wido@wido-desktop:~$ > > >>>> > > >>>> Now, that Java version is old, I know, but it's the openjdk > > >>>> version which is in Ubuntu 12.04's repositories right now. > > >>>> > > >>>> I downloaded Java 7: > > >>>> > > >>>> wido@wido- > > desktop:~/repos/cloudstack$ JAVA_HOME="/opt/jdk1.7.0_15" > > >>>> mvn > > >>> -v > > >>>> Apache Maven 3.0.4 > > >>>> Maven home: /usr/share/maven > > >>>> Java version: 1.7.0_15, vendor: Oracle Corporation Java home: > > >>>> /opt/jdk1.7.0_15/jre Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: > > >>>> UTF-8 OS name: "linux", version: "3.2.0-38-generic", arch: > > >>>> "amd64", > > >>>> family: > > >>> "unix" > > >>>> wido@wido-desktop:~/repos/cloudstack$ > > >>>> > > >>>> With that Java version the master branch builds just fine. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> What I want to discuss which version of Java we support. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd say we support the LTS version of any major release of CentOS > > >>>> or > > >>> Ubuntu. > > >>>> > > >>>> I also understand that Java 6 is pretty old, so what do we do? > > >>>> > > >>>> Wido > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Engineering Experience, Infrastructure tribe, Spotify > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Engineering Experience, Infrastructure tribe, Spotify > > >
