Hi Tamaas, Thanks for the feedback. I'm fine with the plan. We might want to send a message to the user list once we reach some agreement here to assess whether users have a concern.
-Flavio > On 20 Feb 2018, at 20:49, Tamás Pénzes <tam...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Just to add my 2 cents. // Might be five, I write long. :) > Hope, you find valuable bits. > > As many of us I also hope that ZooKeeper 3.5 will be released soon. > Until then most of the changes go into master and branch-3.5 too, so I > would keep them on the same Java version for code compatibility. In the > same time I'd be happy if it was Java 8. > > ZK 3.5+ supports Java 7 since December 2014, an almost 7 year old Java > version today. > It was a perfect decision in 2014, when nobody expected ZK 3.5 coming so > late, but things might be different four years later. > > Since we have to keep compatibility with Java 6 on branch-3.4 we already > need manual changes when cherry picking into that branch. Not much > difference if branch-3.5 is Java 8. > > > As Flavio said changing branch-3.5 to Java 8 might cause issues for users > already using ZK 3.5.x-beta. > I totally agree with that concern, but using a beta state software means > you accept the risk of facing changes. > And Java 8 is four years old now, so we would not change to bleeding edge, > which I guess nobody wanted. > > > So what I would propose is the following: > > - Upgrade branches "master" and "branch-3.5" to Java 8 (LTS) asap. > - After releasing 3.5 GA and the next LTS Java version (Java 11 / > 18.9-LTS) gets released upgrade "master" branch to Java 11-LTS. ( > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html) > - I would not upgrade Java to a non-LTS version. > > > What do you think about it? > > Thanks, Tamaas > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I'm fine with moving to Java 8 or even 9 in 3.6. Does anyone have a >> different option? Otherwise, should we start a vote? >> >> -Flavio >> >> >>> On 16 Feb 2018, at 21:28, Abraham Fine <af...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> I'm a -1 on requiring different minimum versions of java for the client >> and the server. I think this has the potential to create a lot of >> confusion for users and contributors. >>> >>> I would support moving master (3.6) to java 8, I also think it is worth >> considering moving to java 9. Given how long our release cycle tends to be >> I think targeting the latest and greatest this early in the development >> cycle is reasonable. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Abe >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018, at 06:48, Enrico Olivelli wrote: >>>> 2018-02-16 14:20 GMT+01:00 Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com>: >>>> >>>>> +1 for setting the Java8 requirement on server side. >>>>> >>>>> *Client side.* >>>>> I'd like the idea of the setting the requirement on client side too >> without >>>>> introducing anything Java8 specific. I'm not planning to use Java8 >> features >>>>> right on, just thinking of opening the gates would be useful in the >> long >>>>> run. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, I don't see heavy development on the client side. Users >> who >>>>> are tightly coupled to Java7 are still able to use existing clients as >> long >>>>> as we introduce something breaking which they're forced to upgrade to >> for >>>>> whatever reason. I'm not sure what are the odds of that to happen. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My two cents >>>> Actually ZooKeeper is distributed as a single JAR which contains both >>>> server and client side code, requiring Java 7 for the client and Java 8 >> for >>>> the server will require a new way of packaging the artifacts and >> building >>>> the project (and this will require separating client side and server >> side >>>> code base). >>>> Maybe I am missing something. >>>> >>>> >>>> Enrico >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andor >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We have this section in the admin doc that talks about the system >>>>>> requirements: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.5.3-beta/zookeeperAdmin.html#sc_ >>>>>> requiredSoftware <https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.5.3-beta/ >>>>>> zookeeperAdmin.html#sc_requiredSoftware> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we change, then we have to update that section. Specifically about >>>>>> client and server, I'd think that there is no problem with requiring >>>>> Java 8 >>>>>> on the server. The potential concern is with the client as it affects >>>>>> applications that build against it. It would be best to not force >>>>>> applications to upgrade themselves. Looking at the compatibility guide >>>>> for >>>>>> Java 8: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/8- >>>>>> compatibility-guide-2156366.html <http://www.oracle.com/ >>>>>> technetwork/java/javase/8-compatibility-guide-2156366.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> The risk is that an application is strictly using Java 7 because of >> some >>>>>> incompatibility listed in that guide, in which case, it wouldn't be >> able >>>>> to >>>>>> compile the ZK client assuming we get it to use some Java 8 construct. >>>>> One >>>>>> option is that we raise the requirement to Java 8, but we do no really >>>>>> introduce anything that breaks compatibility for the next version. >> Users >>>>>> should take this as a warning that they need to migrate to Java 8. I'm >>>>> not >>>>>> sure this makes the situation any better, though. Another option is >> that >>>>> we >>>>>> set a release to be the one in which we migrate and let everyone know >>>>> that >>>>>> they need to migrate. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Flavio >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16 Feb 2018, at 12:05, Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it would be nice to draw a line at branch-3.5 and target Java >>>>>>> version 8 onwards. It seems to be a good opportunity for the upgrade >>>>>> before >>>>>>> we release a stable version of 3.5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The benefit would be the ability to use new features of Java 8 in the >>>>>> code: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do think it's feasible? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Andor >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >> > > > -- > > *Tamás **Pénzes* | Engineering Manager > e. tam...@cloudera.com > cloudera.com <http://www.cloudera.com/> > > [image: Cloudera] <http://www.cloudera.com/> > > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > ------------------------------
