+1 Let's do it! -Adnan
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 10:03 AM Michael Collado <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 Happy to remove this > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:00 AM Christopher Lambert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > since there seems to be agreement on the removal, I've allowed myself to > > post a PR for it here: > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2963 > > Please take a look. > > Thanks, Christopher > > > > On 30.10.25 20:16, Dmitri Bourlatchkov 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
