Hi haonan, 1. I agree 2. I think it's ok to do so 3. same as above 4. I think the next version? like 1.3.8 5. Nothing from my perspective
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:20 PM Haonan Hou <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a discussion about raising the minimum Java version > of the dev/1.3 branch from Java 8 to Java 17. > > Background > > The dev/1.3 branch currently keeps Java 8 compatibility. However, some > dependencies can no longer be upgraded to versions containing security > fixes while retaining Java 8 support. This makes it increasingly difficult > to address dependency CVEs and maintain the branch safely. > > Proposal > > I propose raising the Java baseline of dev/1.3 to Java 17. The change would > include: > > 1. Requiring JDK 17 for building and running IoTDB. > 2. Updating the Maven compiler and enforcer configurations. > 3. Updating CI workflows, Docker images, documentation, and related > scripts. > 4. Upgrading dependencies that are currently blocked by the Java 8 > baseline, > prioritizing versions that address known CVEs. > 5. Running the relevant unit, integration, compatibility, and upgrade > tests. > > Compatibility impact > > This would be a breaking change for users who still run IoTDB with Java 8 > or Java 11, as they would need to upgrade their runtime to Java 17. > > Another point that needs discussion is client compatibility. If all Java > artifacts are compiled for Java 17, Java 8 and Java 11 applications will no > longer be able to use the Session or JDBC clients from subsequent 1.3.x > releases. An alternative would be to move the server-side modules to Java > 17 > while keeping selected client artifacts compatible with Java 8, although > this would increase build and maintenance complexity. > > I would like to collect feedback on the following questions: > > 1. Do we agree to use Java 17 as the new minimum version for dev/1.3? > 2. Should the change apply to all Java artifacts, including client > libraries? > 3. If client compatibility should be retained, which artifacts should > continue targeting Java 8? > 4. Which 1.3.x release should introduce this change? > 5. Are there any deployment, upgrade, or compatibility concerns that should > be addressed before proceeding? > > Please share your thoughts. > > Best regards, > Haonan Hou >
