based on Joey's question, Joe, any reasons you thought this should be 0.3.0 and not 1.0.0?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]> wrote: > Are we ok with breaking backwards compatibility in minor releases? Updating > the minimum Java version is a breaking change for operational teams. > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 19:58 Bobby Owolabi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > I think this move makes a lot sense. I think Joe’s two arguments are > very > > strong and some of the new language constructs can open up cool ways to > > enhance the developer experience with the framework (hat tip Adam). > > > > Bobby > > > > > On Jun 16, 2015, at 10:48 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Created a JIRA for this: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-692 > > > > > > Will keep it up to date if any gotchas come out of this discussion. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Adam Taft <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> The Streams API and new Date API are worthy. Would love to > (eventually) > > >> see a ProcessSession method that can return a Stream<FlowFile>. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> All, > > >>> > > >>> Would like to kick off a discussion for thoughts on moving the > minimum > > >>> Java requirement for NiFi to Java 8. There are a two immediate > > >>> reasons that make this seem wise: > > >>> > > >>> 1) Java 7 EOL and specifically for security fixes > > >>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/java_7.xml > > >>> > > >>> 2) Key dependencies moving to Java8 > > >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jetty-announce/msg00080.html > > >>> > > >>> Now, item 1 does not mean we must move our minimum to Java 8 but item > > >>> 2 does. Java 8 offers some nice language enhancements which could be > > >>> quite useful within the framework. > > >>> > > >>> I propose we make this change happen in NiFi 0.3.x line. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> Joe > > >>> > > > > >
