Sean: That is probably something we can plow through but thanks for the heads up on a potential unpleasant party.
Tony: We've long since run and intended to run on Java 8. This proposal is about compilation targeting Java 8. Good to clarify though. Joey: I agree this is a breaking change in the broad sense. IMHO, I do not think it is in the spirit of the backward compatibility changes meant though. This seems easily enough explained/warned in our migration guide: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Migration+Guidance If folks agree that this is reasonable I can adjust the wording on the migration guide/breaking change commitment. If folks think this is a breaking change as far as what our commitment to breaking changes should be then ... hmmm... this is tricky. Thanks Joe On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:21 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 >> >>> >> >>
