Should we support limit the max forkjoinpool in 1.1.x? there is a pending pr, I think it would be nice to included in.
Virtual thread can limit it with ` -Djdk.virtualThreadScheduler.maxPoolSize=256"` 何品 Matthew de Detrich <matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io.invalid> 于2024年1月15日周一 09:33写道： > Regarding mult-release JAR support, I did some initial work[1] and I think > that this > will have to wait, possible for SBT 2.x since there are fundamental > limitations in sbt > to properly support this. > > Note that its still technically possible, but in doing so we have to > statically define > a set of keys (i.e. SBT SettingKey) for **every** JDK version that we want > to build > and since we are already at JDK 21 this can get unwieldy pretty quickly. > > [1] > > https://github.com/sbt/sbt-multi-release-jar/issues/24#issuecomment-1891156070 > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Matthew de Detrich < > matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io> wrote: > > > So I have some good news for one of the big ticket items listed earlier, > > Pekko is now using the latest version of sbt-osgi which contains a lot of > > fixes and > > improvements, see https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/920. > > This avoids > > us having to drop sbt-osgi support (doing so is not off the table > > completely but should > > be made as a community decision later). Also > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/252 > > landed which is important since it's a behavioural change. > > > > I would say the only other big item that should be handled before an M1 > > vote is > > finishing off the inliner changes, > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/587 > > and the migration of akka to pekko clusters. A milestone release of these > > changes > > will provide ample opportunity for extensive testing to make sure as much > > as possible > > that the full release is without issues. I left out multi-release-jar > > support, my feeling is > > that this is too big of a change for M1 but It might make sense as an M2 > > or as part of 1.2.x. > > > > If there is anything that's left out please mention it. > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 7:42 AM kerr <hepin1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> +1 for this, IIRC Matthew suggested this kind of release too. > >> 何品 > >> > >> > >> Matthew de Detrich <matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io.invalid> 于2023年12月13日周三 > >> 07:06写道： > >> > >> > Apologies for necroing this topic, but there is one other feature I > >> would > >> > like to add to the M1 > >> > milestone release which is > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/252. The reason I > >> > am pointing out this issue specifically is that it is a breaking > >> behaviour > >> > change (all of the > >> > details are in the PR) so it needs to land for the 1.1.x series, > ideally > >> > for M1 so we can figure > >> > out if there are any behavioural regressions. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 8:40 PM Matthew de Detrich < > >> > matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Some of those changes will likely also need backporting for > >> > > 1.0.x releases. > >> > > > >> > > Indeed, the rolling migration from Akka to Pekko clusters is > actually > >> a > >> > > feature for 1.0.x, but because > >> > > of how its designed (i.e. there is a configuration for the > >> > sender/receiver > >> > > address), this feature and > >> > > configuration also needs to exist for Pekko 1.1.0 otherwise the user > >> > > experience will be extremely > >> > > unintuitive. > >> > > > >> > > > I don't think a 1.1.0-M0 is warranted. This git tag has code that > is > >> > > very similar to Pekko 1.0.1. I don't see the merit in having > multiple > >> > > ASF contributors having to review such a release. > >> > > > >> > > It trivializes MiMa management which is worth the annoyance of > doing a > >> > > release. There really > >> > > isn't any other way without breaking ASF policy, we basically have > to > >> > make > >> > > a release that is > >> > > not a "real" release. > >> > > > >> > > One thing to note is this doesn't occur that frequently (i.e. M0 > >> > > milestones), i.e. its only on a > >> > > minor version bump and it can be argued that this release can be > part > >> of > >> > > the formality of > >> > > when we decide to make a 1.1.x branch, i.e. the community makes a > >> > > decision/vote that > >> > > at a certain point in time we are going to bump the minor version > >> which > >> > > requires a vote > >> > > and that some vote is also used for the M0 release. > >> > > > >> > > In fact, now that I think/write about it, we really should have a > >> formal > >> > > vote when we make a > >> > > minor version bump because it is a significant change, it shouldn't > be > >> > > done at whim (even > >> > > if its from a PMC) > >> > > > >> > > > When I say LTS, I mean what versions will get patches for a long > >> time. > >> > > Java releases are a good example. If an org really needs a Java 22 > >> > > feature they can use Java 22 in production - but they are expected > to > >> > > upgrade to Java 23, etc. when those versions are released until a > new > >> > > Java LTS is released. There are other OSS equivalents. I am not > >> > > talking about Commercial Support contracts - commercial entities are > >> > > very welcome to fill this gap - this does not need to relate > directly > >> > > to the FOSS releases from the ASF project team. > >> > > > >> > > I understand the difference between LTS and commercial contract, > it's > >> > just > >> > > that > >> > > even the variables for how long the support is, is something that I > >> don't > >> > > think > >> > > we have any ability to estimate concretely now. In summary, in my > view > >> > > it's too > >> > > soon to even be discussing this. > >> > > > >> > > > If the consensus is to delay Pekko 1.1 until every candidate > change > >> is > >> > > made - then fine - but this stops users from using features that are > >> > > ready to try, like the Netty 4 support. > >> > > > >> > > As discussed on the github issue[1], this is a non issue. A > milestone > >> > > release > >> > > will cater to anyone who really needs netty4 and as stated, it's > just > >> as > >> > > tested > >> > > as any other Pekko release is. If people are really desperate for > >> netty4, > >> > > then > >> > > they can use the milestone (I would also note that I haven't seen > any > >> > > indication that anyone is begging for netty4 right now). > >> > > > >> > > > Since Pekko 1.1.0 full release seems like a long way away, it > might > >> be > >> > > worth considering mechanisms to release the most useful changes > >> > > earlier - in a way that Pekko 1.0 users can uptake. > >> > > > >> > > This is what milestones are for, i.e. they are precisely the > mechanism > >> > > to solve this issue. It also solves a host of other issues as > >> discussed > >> > > here[2]. > >> > > > >> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/778 > >> > > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread/o494q89hhg64r5nwv4rnq6fsx9zofmny > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 10:57 PM PJ Fanning <fannin...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I have no objections to the general list of changes that we need > for > >> > >> 1.1.0. Some of those changes will likely also need backporting for > >> > >> 1.0.x releases. > >> > >> > >> > >> A 1.1.0-M1 release makes sense. I want to delay it by a week or 2 > >> > >> while we decide what to do about the config logging (recent Akka > >> CVE). > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think a 1.1.0-M0 is warranted. This git tag has code that > is > >> > >> very similar to Pekko 1.0.1. I don't see the merit in having > multiple > >> > >> ASF contributors having to review such a release. > >> > >> > >> > >> I guess it is a separate conversation but there is a fair degree of > >> > >> resistance to us dropping support for anything. I think we will > need > >> > >> to only drop support if it really makes things much easier for us. > >> > >> Multi Release Jars seems like a better option than dropping Java 8 > >> > >> support (for instance). > >> > >> > >> > >> When I say LTS, I mean what versions will get patches for a long > >> time. > >> > >> Java releases are a good example. If an org really needs a Java 22 > >> > >> feature they can use Java 22 in production - but they are expected > to > >> > >> upgrade to Java 23, etc. when those versions are released until a > new > >> > >> Java LTS is released. There are other OSS equivalents. I am not > >> > >> talking about Commercial Support contracts - commercial entities > are > >> > >> very welcome to fill this gap - this does not need to relate > directly > >> > >> to the FOSS releases from the ASF project team. > >> > >> > >> > >> If the consensus is to delay Pekko 1.1 until every candidate change > >> is > >> > >> made - then fine - but this stops users from using features that > are > >> > >> ready to try, like the Netty 4 support. > >> > >> > >> > >> Since Pekko 1.1.0 full release seems like a long way away, it might > >> be > >> > >> worth considering mechanisms to release the most useful changes > >> > >> earlier - in a way that Pekko 1.0 users can uptake. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 12:59, Matthew de Detrich > >> > >> <matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > So my take on this > >> > >> > > >> > >> > - We should do milestones to solve the general problem you are > >> > alluding > >> > >> to, > >> > >> > i.e. the M1 milestone that you suggest that we vote on (we should > >> also > >> > >> do > >> > >> > the M0 milestone which is at the exact moment when a new bump to > >> minor > >> > >> > version is done, reasoning why is given in this thread[1]). I > would > >> > >> argue > >> > >> > that doing an M1 now is a good idea and then an M2 once other > >> critical > >> > >> > features land (such as inliner which is mentioned in the below > >> point) > >> > >> > - There are some critical features that need to be merged before > a > >> > >> release > >> > >> > of 1.1.0 Pekko Core is ever made (and 1.1.0 Pekko core needs to > be > >> > >> released > >> > >> > before any other 1.1.0 releases for the other modules) due to > >> > technical > >> > >> > reasons. On the top of my head the critical features so far are > the > >> > >> > inliner[2] and rolling update migration of Akka to Pekko > >> clusters[3]. > >> > I > >> > >> > think it's achievable to get [2] and [3] done in a few months > time, > >> > but > >> > >> we > >> > >> > would have to focus on getting it over the line ([2] is already > >> > "done", > >> > >> it > >> > >> > just needs a review and testing in downstream modules, [3] likely > >> > needs > >> > >> > more work and most of all testing so that it works as expected). > >> > >> > - Regarding LTS, I don't think we should entertain the idea now. > We > >> > >> have no > >> > >> > idea of what and how an LTS can work and we don't even have the > >> > capacity > >> > >> > for it. It might even be a thing that LTS's are "someone else's" > >> > problem > >> > >> > (Pekko is open source after all). I think the most critical thing > >> is > >> > >> > sticking to semantic versioning, such an expectation is > manageable > >> for > >> > >> us > >> > >> > and I would argue is kind of a requirement for large open source > >> > >> projects > >> > >> > like Pekko > >> > >> > - Fixing the manager name [4] should also be fixed for 1.1.0 > >> (actually > >> > >> if > >> > >> > anything this should be fixed for 1.0.x branch as well) > >> > >> > - As kind of a stretch goal, sbt-multi-release-jar support for > >> > 1.1.0[5] > >> > >> > would be awesome as it would unblock a **lot** of things while > also > >> > >> keeping > >> > >> > part of the community happy > >> > >> > - Releasing pekko 1.1.0 with the latest sbt-osgi (which > apparently > >> > >> fixes a > >> > >> > lot of pain points versus the current osgi used in Pekko 1.0.x) > >> would > >> > be > >> > >> > another nice stretch goal, currently there is one issue with > >> duplicate > >> > >> > classes but we now have infrastructure set up[6] so that we can > >> > properly > >> > >> > test such changes. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Note that a lot of the underlying reasoning behind my points are > >> also > >> > >> > strategic, i.e. keeping features which can be considered critical > >> to > >> > >> Pekko > >> > >> > and/or current Akka users which don't require to much effort > >> > (basically > >> > >> > anything that gives a reason for people to use/migrate to Pekko > >> while > >> > >> not > >> > >> > breaking the i.e. our bank so to speak). I know that there has > >> been a > >> > >> push > >> > >> > to do things like drop JDK 8, Scala 2.12, osgi etc etc due to > death > >> > by a > >> > >> > thousand cuts but tbh objectively speaking these issues are not > >> taking > >> > >> up > >> > >> > that much time (at least personally by far the largest amount of > >> time > >> > >> spent > >> > >> > is just overhead of having to do so many releases and validate > >> them, > >> > >> really > >> > >> > looking forward to the day when we can automate everything with > >> > >> > sbt-reproducible-builds/jardiff/create jars in ci etc etc). Pekko > >> > 2.0.x > >> > >> > series is when we can look forward to drop a lot of this > "annoying > >> > >> > maintenance" stuff and I would actually strongly argue that at > the > >> > time > >> > >> > when we start looking at Pekko 2.0.x we actually get a better > idea > >> of > >> > >> what > >> > >> > our Pekko users look like, because as has been shown due to the > >> chaos > >> > >> > created from the license change very few us had any somewhat > >> realistic > >> > >> lens > >> > >> > as to how the Pekko community (specifically users) look like, > i.e. > >> > while > >> > >> > the OS would **LOVE** to get rid of JDK 1.8 support it just so > >> happens > >> > >> that > >> > >> > a lot of people still need to use JDK 1.8 and even though there > are > >> > >> reasons > >> > >> > to move away from 1.8 evidently they aren't relevant. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > [1] > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/o494q89hhg64r5nwv4rnq6fsx9zofmny > >> > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/305 > >> > >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/765 > >> > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/587 > >> > >> > [5] https://github.com/sbt/sbt-multi-release-jar/issues/22 > >> > >> > [6] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/issues/75 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 12:12 PM PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org > > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > The core pekko repo [1] has quite a few changes in its main > >> branch > >> > >> that > >> > >> > > are are targeted at a future 1.1.0 release. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > We haven't really agreed on what to do with the code that was > >> > already > >> > >> > > deprecated in the Akka era and there is also the issue of the > >> > >> ApiMayChange > >> > >> > > annotations on some of the APIs. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > There are also some new features that developers want to add. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > We don't have a great deal of developer effort available to us. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > I suspect that we need to need to balance the need to release > >> some > >> > of > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > 1.1 changes and then maybe try to make another batch of changes > >> in > >> > >> Pekko > >> > >> > > 1.2. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > What if we aimed to do a Pekko 1.1.0 release in a few months > and > >> > said > >> > >> that > >> > >> > > it was not a Long Term Support release? If we go down this > line, > >> we > >> > >> would > >> > >> > > probably want to have a tentative plan as to when a new LTS > >> release > >> > >> would > >> > >> > > happen. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > An example of something that would be useful to release would > be > >> the > >> > >> > > netty4 support. I know that the Apache Flink team would like to > >> use > >> > >> this. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Alternatively, we could do a Pekko 1.1.0-M1 release. I suspect > >> that > >> > we > >> > >> > > would end up with a fair number of these and the M version > number > >> > >> would > >> > >> > > discourage uptake (except for testing). > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > What are people's thoughts on the options? > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > >> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Matthew de Detrich > >> > >> > > >> > >> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > >> > >> > > >> > >> > *m:* +491603708037 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > Matthew de Detrich > >> > > > >> > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > >> > > > >> > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > >> > > > >> > > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > >> > > > >> > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > >> > > > >> > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > >> > > > >> > > *m:* +491603708037 > >> > > > >> > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Matthew de Detrich > >> > > >> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > >> > > >> > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > >> > > >> > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > >> > > >> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > >> > > >> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > >> > > >> > *m:* +491603708037 > >> > > >> > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > > > > > -- > > Matthew de Detrich > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > *m:* +491603708037 > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io >
