If nothing breaks, and we check perf, then absolutely this seems good. Kenn
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:38 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > Most issues on the previous migration were related to changes on behavior > of class-loading on Java 11. It seems Oracle is taking a more backwards > compatible on latest releases, so let's hope everything will go well. In > the meantime I tested the upgrade locally and tests are passing ok so we > should be good to go. I opened a PR [1] for the version upgrade and > assuming consensus on this proposal I expect we can pass to vote soon. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14766 > > > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 6:13 PM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We've had some issues in the past with semantic changes in ByteBuddy (I >> think related to new Java versions) that required rewriting code in Beam. >> >> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:46 PM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What were the issues last time Reuven? I remember that the release and >>> upgrade PR were pretty smooth, were there unintended consequences from the >>> library changes themselves? >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 12:36 AM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds good. Based on previous experience though, this might be a >>>> difficult upgrade to do. >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 12:57 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The version of bytebuddy Beam is vendoring (1.10.8) is already 16 >>>>> months old and >>>>> it is not compatible with more recent versions of Java. I would like >>>>> to propose >>>>> that we upgrade it [1] to the most recent version (1.11.0) [2] so we >>>>> can benefit >>>>> of the latest improvements for Java 16/17 and upgraded ASM. >>>>> >>>>> If everyone agrees I would like to volunteer as the release manager >>>>> for this >>>>> upgrade. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-12241 >>>>> [2] https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/blob/master/release-notes.md >>>>> >>>>>
