> To my understanding this wasn't the original desire and consensus with > JDK17, folk requested that it be introduced complete, though I cannot > actually find the reference to that. I was about to raise a thread asking > for us to instead take an incremental approach, to help us move faster and > safer, but am doing it here, thanks for raising the thread Josh. As > others point out, we can't paint ourselves into the wrong corner with > JDK17, though we can't drop JDK8 support until we're out of the (right) > corner. >
I forgot to mention something. Taking an incremental approach here also includes dropping support for scripted UDFs first, and later on adding hooks for UDFs so users can re-add the functionality. (This could have been (but idk,) the "complete" desire expressed.) Implementing the hooks for UDFs is a current blocker and slowing down the introduction of jdk17. We would like to remove the blocker by first dropping the already deprecated UDFs first. I am for this approach because everyone having to develop and test against jdk8, when they know 5.0 won't, is more the headache here.
