I think we should run some sort of backwards-compatibility tests between Java 8 and Java 9/11+. We need testing of Geode (both old and current versions) on older JVMs talking to Geode on newer JVMs. (for example, what if Java built-in serialization changes in a way that breaks our code somehow?)
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:45 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Should this not rather be a statement of.. "Running on JDK 11+" and not > > 9+? Given that 9 + 10 are not in support anymore. > > Also, when this is released, we will running on 11 rather than 9, or > > what is the thought (end goal) with this effort? > > > Yes, let's for the sake of discussion, assuming jdk9+ here means jdk11+. > > > > > > Also does this effort cover some of the main additions to the JDK since > > 9, which is the whole modularity theme? > > > Not yet. We are just trying to get a green pipeline to start with. > > > > > > --Udo > > > > On 10/8/18 14:11, Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > In the effort of making GEODE java 9+ compatible, we already determined > > > that older released versions of GEODE can NOT be run using jdk9+. With > > this > > > in mind, should we still run those compatibility/upgrade DUnit tests in > > > java9+ pipeline? The current state of things are: > > > > > > 1) A subset of compatibility/upgrade DUnit tests are successful in > java9+ > > > are passing because the dunit test environment happen to have the > missing > > > jars in the classpath. With the exclusion of Geode 1.4 in those test, > we > > > can make all of them pass. (Just FYI, only Geode1.4 is failing in jdk9+ > > is > > > because we introduced SerializationFilter in 1.4, but the support for > in > > > jdk9 was added only in 1.5). > > > 2. We will have parallel pipelines testing with both jdk8 and jdk9+. So > > > even if we don't run these tests in jdk9+ pipeline, we are still > running > > > them in jdk8. > > > > > > The question to ask is: does running compatibility/upgrade tests in > jdk9 > > in > > > addition to jdk8 offer additional value? > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Jinmei >
