Ok, it sounds like dual versions is not an option. There is no “plan” for Java 17. (Or, more precisely, for dropping support for earlier Java versions.) We’ve not started the conversation.
Julian > On Aug 11, 2025, at 21:11, Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > When we did this on HBase, a lot of the Jetty facing code had to be updated. > We did not attempt to have code that works with either version, but I got > the impression that Jetty 9.4 and 12.0 are not API compatible. > (I was only involved as a reviewer) > > My guess is that we'd have to factor out the Jetty facing code into a > separate module and duplicate it, add profiles, etc. > This would also affect the server uberjar, which would also have to be > duplicated. > I haven't checked if we use any Jetty code in the client libraries, if we > do that may also be affected. > > In other word, it would be quite a lot of work and added complexity. > > What is the plan for bumping the minimum requirement to Java 17 in the main > Calcite codebase ? > > Istvan > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:44 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Is multi-version compatibility an option? By which I mean, do we use >> any APIs that have been changed/removed since Jetty 9.4. >> >> If so, people on Java 8 could continue to use Jetty 9.4, and people on >> Java 17+ could upgrade to Jetty 12. The default Jetty version would be >> the latest, but we would give instructions on how to use an earlier >> Jetty version, and continue to test Java 8. >> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:23 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The limitation is Java 8 compatibility. >>> >>> Upgrading to Jetty 12 means bumping the minimum supported Java supported >>> version to 17, so this discussion is basically about how long to maintain >>> Java 8 compatibility. >>> >>> Jetty 9.4 is kind of EOL, there are usually updates for security issues, >>> but there are no formal guarantees for that. >>> >>> I think that this thread is the ideal forum for this discussion. >>> >>> Istvan >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 6:55 PM Lucas Capistrant < >> capistrant.lu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I’m looking into the current Jetty dependency in Calcite Avatica, >> which is >>>> still on Jetty 9 (EOL), and wanted to reach out to the community to >> discuss >>>> the potential for upgrading to Jetty 12. >>>> >>>> In general, I’d like to - >>>> >>>> 1. Ask if there’s been any prior discussion or dev work on upgrading to >>>> Jetty 12 >>>> >>>> 2. Gauge interest and alignment in moving to Jetty 12. Would creating a >>>> Jira for deeper discussion be the right next step? >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Lucas Capistrant >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer >>> *Email*: st...@cloudera.com >>> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> >>> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> >>> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: >>> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: >> Cloudera >>> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------ >> > > > -- > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > *Email*: st...@cloudera.com > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------
