+1 it makes sense to me. Thanks !
Regards JB On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 2:16 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Now that 1.2.0 has officially been released, I'd like to re-open the > discussion about EclipseLink removal and propose to remove it from `main` > now (impacts the upcoming 1.3.0 or 2.0.0 release). > > Any concerns? > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:41 AM Prashant Singh > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 to remove Eclipselink on 1.3 or later ! > > > > Best, > > Prashant Singh > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 7:08 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
