FWIW all non-EOL versions of Spark support JDK17. JDK25 support is going to take a hot minute though in Spark land.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 2:47 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for dropping Java 11. Is it considered EOL by most vendors. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 7:25 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks everyone for the feedback on JDK 25. It should not be tied to the > decision of dropping JDK 11 support. We can add it whenever the upstream > blockers are resolved. > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:13 PM Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Moving to JDK 17+ is indeed a good thing, JDK 17 is a de facto new > baseline for modern Java stacks, it was adopted by Maven, Gradle, Spring, > Spark, Jackson3 and many popular Java projects as the minimal supported > Java version. > >> > >> For JDK 25, I think the bigdata projects are majorly blocked by Hadoop > (currently the Hadoop UGI does not work on JDK 23+ due to JDK > SecurityManager changes), the fixes already landed in Hadoop trunk branch, > and suppose to be ported to branch-3.4, the next version Hadoop 3.4.3 will > unlock this. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cheng Pan > >> > >> > >> > >> On Nov 21, 2025, at 13:55, Manu Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I'm encountering several issues with JDK 11, which prompted me to > remove it in the PR mentioned by Kevin. > >> > >> 1. Stuck with ORC-1.9.x which had CVE[1] and low release cadence > >> 2. Upcoming Spark 4.1 can no longer target JDK11[2] > >> 3. Upgrade to datafusion-comet 0.11.0 failed[3], although it has set > JDK11 as target. > >> > >> Hence, I also support dropping Java 11, and we don't need workarounds > here and there. > >> > >>> We will still have 3 LTS releases (17, 21, 25) after dropping Java 11. > >> > >> I don't think we can have JDK25 till Spark, Flink and other > dependencies support it > >> > >>> what does that make the minimum supported spark version > >> > >> That will be Spark 3.4 or Spark 3.5 if we drop 3.4 in 1.11 as well. > >> > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/14391 > >> [2] > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14155/commits/53bc376e5bf71a8f802c28186de943aff01d27bc#diff-5392a130b5f4f17e365379befee19dd4105817da777df9b8699b5e5704ce4d68R54 > >> [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14591 > >> > >> Regards, > >> Manu > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks for starting the convo, JB. > >>> > >>> I'm in favor of dropping Java 11 support. > >>> I see Manu has started a draft PR to remove java 11 [1]. This gives a > good overview of the current places where java 11 is used. > >>> > >>> Depending on the scope of the work, I think we can also target the > next Iceberg release (1.11). > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Kevin Liu > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14400/files > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 12:28 PM Steve Loughran <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> JDK25 is fairly traumatic security-API wise; not of direct relevance > to iceberg AFAIK. > >>>> > >>>> With a minimum of java17, what does that make the minimum supported > spark version (i.e what version of spark supports java17?) > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 at 06:51, Eduard Tudenhöfner < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I would also be in favor of moving to JDK 17 but we need to check > what the implications are. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 5:36 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yeah, the Flink benchmark shouldn't be a blocker, as the 1.20 > module itself can be built and run with Java 17. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am in favor of dropping Java 11 support. We probably can also add > Java 25 to the CI build after dropping Java 11, as JDK 25 (LTS) was > released on Sep 25. We will still have 3 LTS releases (17, 21, 25) after > dropping Java 11. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I tend to be a bit more aggressive in dropping old versions. Let's > see what others think. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I worked on the Gradle 9.x upgrade for Iceberg. Gradle 9.2.x > requires > >>>>>>> JDK17 minimum. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I did a quick pass on Iceberg modules, I see all modules support > JDK17. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There is a known issue with JDK 17 in the Flink 1.20 module for a > >>>>>>> specific benchmark. The comment in > >>>>>>> > flink/v1.20/flink/src/jmh/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/sink/shuffle/StatisticsRecordSerializerBenchmark.java. > >>>>>>> This benchmark in 1.20 only works with Java 11 probably due to > usage > >>>>>>> of ArraysAsListSerializer in FlinkChillPackageRegistrar. Flink 2.0 > and > >>>>>>> above switched to DefaultSerializers#ArraysAsListSerializer in Kryo > >>>>>>> 5.6. > >>>>>>> Using Java 17 would result in the following error..."This affects > only > >>>>>>> that JMH benchmark, not the entire Flink 1.20 module. The module > can > >>>>>>> still be built and run with JDK 17; the benchmark has a runtime > issue > >>>>>>> due to Java module access restrictions. > >>>>>>> I think we can live with that, waiting to remove Flink 1.20 in the > future. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to start a discussion to define JDK17 > min > >>>>>>> in Iceberg. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thoughts ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> NB: if we have a consensus, I would be happy to start an > >>>>>>> update/cleanup PR and prepare the next "major" release with JDK17 > min. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>> JB > >> > >> > -- Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau Pronouns: she/her
