fantastic On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 2:40 PM Haonan Hou <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here you go. > https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/18499 > > Haonan > > On 2026/08/20 02:16:26 Haonan Hou wrote: > > Hi, > > > > If no more questions about it, I'm going to prepare a PR. > > > > BR, > > Haonan > > > > On 2026/08/18 07:35:27 Yuan Tian wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
