Perhaps discuss on the user list as Flavio mentioned prior to calling a vote? Has anyone looked at dependencies, is this consistent with what the rest of the ecosystem has defined. Hadoop/Hbase/Kafka/... components, Curator, etc...
Regards, Patrick On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Is everybody happy with the plan that Tamaas suggested? > Shall we start a vote? > > Andor > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Mark Fenes <mfe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I totally support the idea of upgrading to Java 8 and I agree with Abe > that > > we should not require different minimum versions of Java for the client > and > > the server. > > Also skipping the non-LTS versions sounds reasonable. > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:49 PM, 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> > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > >
