Flink will be dropping Java 7 support in 1.5.0 (Java 8 is required for Scala 2.12+): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5005. This is another bump in favor of setting Java 8 as the project default. We'll eventually need to switch the Flink runner if we want it to stay up to date.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding: I didn't mean to suggest to actually > use confidence intervals, I added that information just as a curiosity. I > agree that we should make the decision based on the explicit % of votes. > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -user list for this >> >> FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was >> launched, but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%. >> >> If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either >> need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a >> more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which >> is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is >> already effectively done if that is the standard. >> >> But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to >> make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had >> talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java >> 7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have >> said the balance was off. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this >>> thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96% >>> who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily >>> switch. >>> >>> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking >>> at between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support >>> :) >>> >>> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming >>> in on this thread! >>> >>> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can >>> be dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th; >>> since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3 >>> more rounds of the same poll?..), however: >>> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using >>> JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía >>> <[email protected]> and +Daniel Oliveira <[email protected]> once >>> requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets >>> "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade >>> to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection. >>> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language >>> level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging >>> Java8-friendly APIs. >>> Thoughts on the above? >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> A Twitter poll has been sent out too https://twitter.com/ >>>> ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857 >>>> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. >>>> I encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread >>>> instead. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however >>>>> some people have expressed concern that this is too short. >>>>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the >>>>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than >>>>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130 >>>>>> fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in which the >>>>>> community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam Java to >>>>>> Java8-only. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering >>>>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam >>>>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major >>>>>> version >>>>>> of Beam. >>>>>> >>>>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the >>>>>> thread above. >>>>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as >>>>>> follows: >>>>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already >>>>>> vanishingly small. >>>>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for >>>>>> years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea >>>>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only >>>>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. >>>>>> many >>>>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs, >>>>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java >>>>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK) >>>>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more >>>>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have >>>>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the >>>>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather >>>>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production >>>>>> Beam code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but >>>>>> I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to >>>>>> Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons >>>>>> to >>>>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and >>>>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new >>>>>> release >>>>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam >>>>>> 2.3, >>>>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support] >>>>>> >>>>>> >> -- -Ben
