I have reservations about bumping the minimum runtime Java version to 17, because I have applications that use ZooKeeper client code that run Java 11. I think a more modest change would be to bump the required build version to 17, but keep the target version at 11. If this is being considered for 4.0.0 only, then I'm okay with just going to 17 for the runtime version as well. I think my existing applications that run on java 11 can continue to use 3.x.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 8:44 AM Kezhu Wang <kez...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > +1 to upgrade to JDK 17 > > Ideally, I would suggest using different jdk versions for client and > server to not push client usage just like kafka[1] and pulsar[2]. But > given the fact that we don't have a slim client jar[3], so +1 to this. > > +1 to call next release from master as 3.10.0 > > I think most of the code changes in master since 3.9 were expected to > be shipped in 3.10.0. One can confirm this in zookeeperAdmin.md. I > don't think it is worth bumping to 4.x near its release. > > I expect 4.x to be a planned version to do some ambitious tasks and > probably in a not backward compatible way such as ZOOKEEPER-233[3], > ZOOKEEPER-835[4] or ZOOKEEPER-22[5]. Also, there is 4.0.0 in jira[6]. > > I do think bumping to JDK 17 could also be considered as a breaking > change, but that could be trivial for dependants to solve and not > touching zookeeper related codes. I would prefer new features(probably > along with breaking changes) from our side in major releases. > > [1]: https://kafka.apache.org/40/documentation/compatibility.html > [2]: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar?tab=readme-ov-file#pulsar-runtime-java-version-recommendation > [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-233 > [4]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-835 > [5]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-22 > [6]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ZOOKEEPER/versions/12313382 > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 9:34 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > What tech debt do you mean exactly? > > > > I'm happy either way, don't have strong opinion, we can stay at 3.x.x > > versioning. > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > > On 8/9/25 06:40, tison wrote: > > > Or instead, from a different perspective, if we call a 4.0, can we pay > > > back > > > some tech debt just for compatibility? > > > > > > Best, > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com>于2025年8月9日 周六18:30写道： > > > > > >> +1 for JDK17 > > >> > > >> -0 for 4.0. Bumping JDK version doesn't break APIs and contracts. So I'd > > >> prefer 3.10. 4.0 may give a signal of a big break change but it isn't. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> tison. > > >> > > >> > > >> Li Wang <li4w...@gmail.com>于2025年8月9日 周六08:51写道： > > >> > > >>> That's awesome. Thanks for driving this, Andor! > > >>> > > >>> After releasing 3.9.4 I’d like to announce EoL of the 3.8.x release line > > >>>> and create a new minor/major off the master branch. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Does this mean the next major version (i.e. 4.0.0/3.10.0) will be > > >>> released > > >>> soon, as we need to have a new current release before announcing EoL of > > >>> the > > >>> 3.8.x release? > > >>> > > >>> Given the 3.9.4 release is in progress, any rough idea on when the next > > >>> major version will be? > > >>> > > >>> what if we rather call the new release 4.0.0 > > >>> > > >>> +1 for calling it 4.0.0. Looks like we have been on 3.x for about 17 > > >>> years > > >>> already. > > >>> > > >>> what if we make two steps forward instead of one and let Java 17 to be > > >>> the > > >>>> minimum requirement > > >>> > > >>> +1 for Java 17 > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Li > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Thanks for driving this Andor! I think what you are saying makes sense, > > >>>> will be interested to see what other ppl think. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> Patrick > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:27 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Li, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The topic comes up every so often on the Dev list, so let’s bring it > > >>> up > > >>>>> again. After releasing 3.9.4 I’d like to announce EoL of the 3.8.x > > >>>> release > > >>>>> line and create a new minor/major off the master branch. I’d like to > > >>> drop > > >>>>> Java 8 support in that release and make Java 11 as minimum requirement > > >>>> for > > >>>>> ZooKeeper. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * In which case, what if we rather call the new release 4.0.0? > > >>>>> * Additionally what if we make two steps forward instead of one and > > >>> let > > >>>>> Java 17 to be the minimum requirement? With that, we could upgrade > > >>> Jetty > > >>>> to > > >>>>> the latest actively supported version. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Please share your thoughts. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Andor > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On May 7, 2025, at 13:16, Li Wang <li4w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hello, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Does anyone know when 3.10.0 is planned to be released? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Li > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
