Hi Wang, I know that there is no schedule for that, but I would like to bring up the need to discuss this.
Right now, we are stuck with updating 10 or more dependencies to more recent ones and I think I have 2-3 CVE exclusions in the build that manually allow the build to succeed, even if there are vulnerabilities known for some of our libraries as the issues could not be resolved because of us requiring Java 8 compatibility. I think it would be beneficial for the project to discuss giving up on Java 8 support. One possible option would be to continue a 1.3.x or even better the 1.x branch which stays compatible with Java 8 and then to create a 2.0.0 branch which baselines on Java 11. Chris Von: Wang Critas <cri...@outlook.com> Datum: Mittwoch, 15. Mai 2024 um 10:17 An: dev@iotdb.apache.org <dev@iotdb.apache.org> Betreff: 答复: Jakarta migration However, it seems that we have not abandoned Java 8 plan 发件人: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> 日期: 星期二, 2024年5月14日 23:26 收件人: dev@iotdb.apache.org <dev@iotdb.apache.org> 主题: AW: Jakarta migration Most of the build is now working correctly however there are still two Integration tests that are failing. At first I thought they were due to issues with the server, but I am actually able to start my Jakarta version of IoTDB and connect to it with the JDBC driver without any issues. Also don’t I see any issues in the logs when starting a distribution. I assume the remaining issues might be on the client side of the tests and will continue with my work as soon as I’m done with this month’s board report reviews. Chris Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> Datum: Montag, 13. Mai 2024 um 17:41 An: dev@iotdb.apache.org <dev@iotdb.apache.org> Betreff: Jakarta migration Hi all, I am currently working on the Jakarta migration … initially I thought of this as an experiment in order to find out what the implications would be. Turns out my gut-feeling was right that this would not be a simple change. Less for the complexity of the changes, but what they would bring to the rest of the build. So, for now it seems as if the only Netty version compatible with the Jakarta namespace would be Netty 11 (Technically they claimed 10 would be compatible, but that’ just not true). Unfortunately, Netty 9 was the last version to work with Java 8 … so it seems as if going to the Jakarta namespace would stop us from building on Java 8. I know I knew why I would have preferred this migration for a bigger release, but I guess a 1.4.0 or 2.0.0 might be more appropriate for a change like this. Chris
