This should be that:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-5038




> On May 5, 2026, at 04:09, Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Il Lun 4 Mag 2026, 22:15 Lari Hotari <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> 
>> I'm just wondering if we could first decouple the code that uses Jetty from
>> zookeeper-server.
>> 
>> I added this comment to ZOOKEEPER-5038:
>> =====
>> Since the recurring blocker for upgrading Jetty is the Java baseline (Jetty
>> 12 requires Java 17, while ZooKeeper still supports Java 8/11), it would be
>> useful to decouple the HTTP admin server from zookeeper-server entirely.
>> 
>> Concretely, the org.apache.zookeeper.server.admin package could be moved
>> out of the zookeeper-server module into a new, separate module — for
>> example zookeeper-server-http-admin. The rest of ZooKeeper would keep its
>> current Java 8/11 compatibility, and only this optional module would
>> require Java 17 (and pull in Jetty 12).
>> 
>> To avoid a hard compile-time dependency from zookeeper-server on the new
>> module, the admin server could be loaded via reflection at runtime when it
>> is enabled in the configuration. That way users on older JDKs simply don't
>> enable the HTTP admin server, while users on Java 17+ get a fully
>> maintained Jetty.
>> 
>> This would also let the Jetty upgrade proceed independently of the broader
>> Java baseline discussion.
>> =====
>> 
>> Would this make sense?
>> 
> 
> It does.
> 
> Let's create a JIRA, we should make this change before cutting the next
> release
> 
> 
> Enrico
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -Lari
>> 
>> On Mon, 4 May 2026 at 22:50, Andor Molnár <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Absolutely. That’s actually my original intention for the JDK 17 upgrade.
>>> We should definitely upgrade to Jetty 12 once the JDK upgraded landed.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the heads-up.
>>> 
>>> Andor
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 4, 2026, at 05:39, Lari Hotari <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I'd like to raise a point related to the discussion about ZooKeeper's
>>>> minimum supported Java version.
>>>> 
>>>> Jetty 9.x is end-of-life and no longer receives OSS security updates.
>>> There
>>>> are unaddressed CVEs that affect the 9.4.x line:
>>>> 
>>>> - CVE-2026-2332 (High) – HTTP request smuggling via chunked extension
>>>> parsing; affects Jetty <= 9.4.59. Fixed in 9.4.60.
>>>> - CVE-2025-11143 (Low) – differential URI parsing that can lead to
>>> security
>>>> bypass; affects Jetty <= 9.4.58. Fixed in 9.4.59.
>>>> 
>>>> The catch is that 9.4.59 and 9.4.60 are only available to customers
>>> paying
>>>> for commercial support (e.g. Webtide/HeroDevs NES). OSS projects can no
>>>> longer obtain security fixes for Jetty 9.x through Maven Central.
>>>> 
>>>> The supported community line is Jetty 12.x, which requires Java 17 as
>> the
>>>> baseline.
>>>> 
>>>> In Apache Pulsar, we've had to carry a fairly invasive workaround to
>>>> upgrade to Jetty 12.x while still depending on ZooKeeper: we patch /
>>> shadow
>>>> the relevant Pulsar-side integration classes (the equivalents of
>>>> org.apache.zookeeper.server.admin and
>>>> org.apache.zookeeper.metrics.prometheus) so Pulsar can run on Jetty
>> 12.x
>>>> even though ZooKeeper still pulls in Jetty 9.x. We'd very much like to
>>> drop
>>>> this hack, but that requires ZooKeeper itself to move off Jetty 9.x.
>>>> 
>>>> Given that Jetty 12.x requires Java 17, raising ZooKeeper's Java
>> baseline
>>>> to 17 would unblock the Jetty upgrade and close the CVE exposure for
>>>> downstream OSS users at the same time. Would the project consider tying
>>> the
>>>> Java 17 baseline discussion to a Jetty 12 migration on the same release
>>>> line?
>>>> 
>>>> Happy to help with the migration work if there's interest.
>>>> 
>>>> -Lari
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 at 02:14, Andor Molnár <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I’m trying to extract the relevant information from the thread for
>> you.
>>>>> Previously I wrote something like:
>>>>> 
>>>>> “… we could make a leap and make JDK 17 the minimum runtime and
>> compile
>>>>> versions for the master branch.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once the change is merged to master, we'll backport it to branch-3.9
>> as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * minimum JDK for building: 17
>>>>> * minimum JRE for running: 8 (no change) “
>>>>> 
>>>>> As far as I know, that’s what we agreed on, but unfortunately, no one
>>> has
>>>>> been willing to create a PR for it since then. Are you happy to work
>> on
>>> it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andor
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2026, at 13:12, Andor Molnár <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you, your efforts are much appreciated.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. At the moment we still support Java 8 on all active branches.
>>>>>> There’s only one exception: Owasp build process requires Java 11 to
>>> run.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There was a bunch of discussions [1] and [2] recently regarding how
>>>>> should we
>>>>>> upgrade and which JDK versions should we support on our branches. You
>>>>> might
>>>>>> want to review them before going forward.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/42537mr70g3n8srzxg406xlssbcsqr7w
>>>>>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/ng8gq261ts5znzt6wb3zgjwqpsoqfftv
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Andor
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2026, at 07:57, Dávid Paksy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi ZooKeeper devs,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I started to work on JDK25 support in ZooKeeper. The compilation
>> works
>>>>> fine
>>>>>>> but for the tests to work I created ZOOKEEPER-5039 to upgrade
>> Mockito
>>> to
>>>>>>> 5.23.0.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I put up #2376 PR and I saw, the GH: Action builds at the moment are
>>>>> done
>>>>>>> using Java 8 and Java 11.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mockito 5.x requires Java 11 or higher. It will not work with Java
>> 8.
>>>>>>> Mockito 4.x supported Java 8 but Mockito 4.x does not support Java
>> 25.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do we have to support Java 8 on ZooKeeper master branch? I did not
>>> found
>>>>>>> any documentation regarding this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> Dávid
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to