EL is officially deprecated since 1.0.0 [1] :) +1 to removing it in 1.3. I'll open a PR to add this to CHANGELOG / docs.
[1] https://polaris.apache.org/releases/1.0.0/metastores/#eclipselink-deprecated Cheers, Dmitri. On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:51 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on "officially" deprecating EL in 1.2 + removing it in 1.3 > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 7:53 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I agree with Yufei: > > 1. I would announce EclipseLink will be removed in 1.3 > > 2. We do remove it in the 1.3 release > > 3. I don't think we need any tool: moving from EclipseLink to JDBC > > should be smooth and with minimal effort. For one shot effort, not > > sure it's worth to spend time on "migration tool". > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:41 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 on removing it. Given Polaris’ monthly release cadence, it seems > fine to > > > wait two (remove in 1.3) or three (remove in 1.4) more releases. > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/tree/main/polaris-synchronizer > can > > > migrate principals, but doesn't support policies. > > > > > > I’m not sure it’s worth building another type of migration tool for > this > > > use case, we might be better off improving the existing ones. > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM Adam Christian < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You are right, Russell. We should make a clear migration path, so our > > > > EclipseLink users are able to easily transition off on EclipseLink. > I know > > > > that this has come up before [1]. Let me investigate a few options > on what > > > > guidance we can give or what tooling we can produce. > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1875 > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 3:49 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We have two migration tools: > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/tree/main/iceberg-catalog-migrator > > > > > > > > > > * > https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/tree/main/polaris-synchronizer > > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty confident that iceberg-catalog-migrator works well, but > it can > > > > > only migrate tables, not principals. > > > > > > > > > > I never personally used polaris-synchronizer, still it's supposed > to > > > > > migrate all Polaris data, including principals. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 3:13 PM Russell Spitzer < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 I think removing EclipseLink should happen soon now that we > have 2 > > > > > > releases with it deprecated. I have > > > > > > looked too deeply into this but do we have a migration plan for > users > > > > > > already on EclipseLink to get over to the > > > > > > JDBC Impl? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:53 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this issue up, Adam! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support removing EclipseLink code immediately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My rationale: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Due to EclipseLink deprecation, non-trivial new features are > not > > > > > > > necessarily implemented there [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Any new bugs reported for EclipseLink are not likely to get > > > > attention > > > > > > > because this backend is in decline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Users had better migrate to a supported backend earlier. If > > > > migration > > > > > > is > > > > > > > deferred, it will likely mean that any issues related to > migration > > > > will > > > > > > > take even longer to be found. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Polaris 1.1.0 still has EclipseLink, which offers users a > supported > > > > > > > version where critical issues could still be fixed, if they are > > > > found. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Having EclipseLink in the codebase adds overhead for new > features > > > > > that > > > > > > > touch Persistence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2197/files#diff-59a870c7af1578200236f22d35fd2eb75dc2a1e73e51218464eb7ba089217da7R759 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 1:27 PM Adam Christian < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howdy Polaris Community! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was going through our open bugs and I noticed that there > are > > > > > around 5 > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > 10 bugs related to EclipseLink persistence. I was wondering > when we > > > > > > > > believe a good time to remove EclipseLink would be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think we could probably start doing it now > since it's > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > deprecated since 1.0.0 and we have a clear alternative. I > believe > > > > > there > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > several pros for our users such as streamlined documentation > and > > > > > > benefits > > > > > > > > to the contributors such as less issues, dependencies, and > modules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do y'all feel about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we are aligned, I can create the issue and start working > on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
