I like the idea of targeting 1.0.0 and starting to advertise now that Java 8 is coming, that way people have time to upgrade ahead of the release if they want to. Not sure what other projects do, but is there a good way to keep reminding the community that this is coming? maybe a notice on the NiFi Downloads page?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok. I am considering this as a -1 for the notion of 0.3.0 or really > 0.x.0. Moved the ticket to 1.0.0. > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe, > > I do not agree that a new jvm is necessarily 'easily addressed', > > especially if I've used nifi code or artifacts elsewhere, potentially > > integrated into something that has not made the jump to 8. > > > > I'd be a bit miffed if I saw 'backwards compatible' advertised, then I > drop > > a new jar (or nar) in my application, and it barfs. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Tony, > >> > >> I think this should be 0.x.0 and not 1.0.0 because it is easily > >> addressed by operations folks by upgrading their JVM and they already > >> have substantive motivation to do so (no more vulnerability fixes in > >> Java 7). We also want to keep our ability to stay close to the > >> upgrade cycle of Jetty (a critical dependency of ours) which often > >> includes fixes related to security. > >> > >> I personally see this as a no harm situation. I've wanted to propose > >> this for some time but felt it was too premature because there were > >> still updates for Java 7 coming related to security. Now that this > >> too has stopped this seems a prudent time to act. > >> > >> I also acknowledge I'm walking a pretty fine line with my argument > >> here. It won't offend me if we do a 1.0.0 release in the near future > >> :-) > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > 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 > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
