Yes, LexisNexis is running Java 11 and will probably move to Java 17 soon because of Spring Boot 3 requirements. We are running a few hundred Solr nodes, mostly 9.1. Probably a few 8.10 clusters out there.
wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Nov 6, 2023, at 5:18 AM, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For perspective, I'm still seeing java 11 as the norm for clients... 17 is > uncommon. Anything requiring 21 is likely to be difficult to sell. I am > however a small shop, and "migrating off of solr 6" and "trying out solr > cloud" is still a thing for some clients. > > Just a datapoint/anecdote, possibly skewed. > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 7:41 AM Chris Hegarty > <christopher.hega...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> > On 6 Nov 2023, at 12:24, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> >> … >> >> The only concern I have with no.2 is that it could be considered an >> >> “aggressive” adoption of Java 21 - adoption sooner than the ecosystem can >> >> handle, e.g. are environments in which Lucene is deployed, and their >> >> transitive dependencies, ready to run on Java 21? By the time we’re ready >> >> to release 10.0.0, say March 2023, then I expect no issue with this. >> > >> > The problem is worse, historically jdk version X isn't adopted as a >> > minimum until it is already EOL. And the lucene major versions take an >> > eternity to get out there, code just sits in "main" branch for years >> > unreleased to nobody. It is really discouraging as a contributor to >> > contribute code that literally sits on the shelf for years, for no >> > good reason at all. >> >> Agreed. I also feel discouraged by this approach too, and also wanna >> avoid the “backport the world”, since it’s counterproductive. >> >> > So why delay? >> > >> > The argument of "moving sooner than ecosystem can handle" is also >> > bogus in the same way. You mean versus the code sitting on the shelf >> > and being released to nobody? >> >> Yes - sitting on the shelf is no good to anyone. >> >> Ok, what I’m hearing are good arguments for releasing 10.0.0 *now*, with >> a Java 17 minimum - this is what is in _main_ today. >> >> If we do that, then we can follow up with _main_ later (after the 10.x >> branch is created). That is, 1) bump _main_ to Java 21, and 2) decide >> when a Lucene 11 is to be released (I would to see Lucene 11 ~1yr after >> Lucene 10). >> >> This is Uwe’s proposal, earlier in this thread. >> >> -Chris. >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> <mailto:dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> >> > > > -- > http://www.needhamsoftware.com <http://www.needhamsoftware.com/> (work) > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
