Doc updates: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2605
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 9:55 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> >
