big
> > > >> enterprises
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > >> notoriously sluggish update cycles, so we want to offer
> > maximum
> > > >> > > > >> compatibility. Once security patches are no longer available
> >
gt; > to
> > > > > >> > > > > drop Java <17? How did they weigh the benefits/drawbacks
> > for
> > > > > >> dropping
> > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > >> > > > >
; > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:14 PM <
> martin.trave...@icloud.com
> > > > >> .invalid>
> > > > >> > > > wro
prises
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > >> notoriously sluggish update cycles, so we want to offer
> > maximum
> > > >> > > > >> compatibility. Once security patches are no longer
> available
> >> the EOL schedule of our dependencies.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> Corretto, Adoptium and Zulu all have recent public builds of
> > >> both 8
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > 11
t; > >> they made their licensing blunder with Java 8 and although that
> >> is
> >> > > > >> rectified now, the change seems to have stuck in quite a few
> >> places
> >> > > (at
> >> > > > >> least in my anecdo
gt; then perhaps most people have figured out by now to add the JVM
>> > params
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> let Java continue working. Still, it could be a consideration, if
>> > > > Java17
>> > > > >> is the baseline suppor
t, even C++ got there sooner!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 30 Apr 2024, at 16:20, Jacob Wujciak
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hello everyone!
> > > > >>> Great to see this move forward!
> > &g
pain of
> > > migration
> > > >>> again when we drop that (which will happen soon regardless imo).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 16:18 Uhr schrieb Dane Pitkin
> > > >>> :
> > > >>>
to
> Java
> > >> 17.
> > >>>> It seems other projects are dropping both 8 and 11 at the same time
> as
> > >>>> mentioned by Fokko. From a maintenance perspective, it would be nice
> > to
> > >>>> drop both.
> > &g
t; drop both.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it's time to drop JDK8 sup
7 would be problematic
>>>>> potentially for some users I guess).
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:21 PM James Duong
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>&
a
> > > > files. Then we could remove the custom maven plugin we’re using for
> > > > compiling module-info.java files for JPMS support and get better IDE
> > > > integration (as what we’re doing currently somewhat shoe-horns module
> > > > informatio
S support and get better IDE
> > > integration (as what we’re doing currently somewhat shoe-horns module
> > > information alongside JDK8 bytecode).
> > > >
> > > > From: Dane Pitkin
> > > > Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 1:02 PM
> > > &
en we could remove the custom maven plugin we’re using for
> > compiling module-info.java files for JPMS support and get better IDE
> > integration (as what we’re doing currently somewhat shoe-horns module
> > information alongside JDK8 bytecode).
> > >
> > >
t;
> >>>> If we dropped JDK 8, we could use the JDK to compile module-info.java
> >>> files. Then we could remove the custom maven plugin we’re using for
> >>> compiling module-info.java files for JPMS support and get better IDE
> >>> integration (as
gt;>
>>>> If we dropped JDK 8, we could use the JDK to compile module-info.java
>>> files. Then we could remove the custom maven plugin we’re using for
>>> compiling module-info.java files for JPMS support and get better IDE
>>> integration (as what we
s. Then we could remove the custom maven plugin we’re using for
> > compiling module-info.java files for JPMS support and get better IDE
> > integration (as what we’re doing currently somewhat shoe-horns module
> > information alongside JDK8 bytecode).
> > >
> > > Fro
t; integration (as what we’re doing currently somewhat shoe-horns module
> information alongside JDK8 bytecode).
> >
> > From: Dane Pitkin
> > Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 1:02 PM
> > To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Drop Java 8 support
>
rom: Dane Pitkin
> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 1:02 PM
> To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Drop Java 8 support
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to revisit the discussion of dropping Java 8 (and maybe 11)
> from Arrow's Java implementation. See GH issue[1] below
Thanks James, Fokko! Sounds like we are generally in agreement to move
forward.
I'll leave the discussion open for now in case others have
questions/comments to add.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:25 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote:
> Hey Dane,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up again.
>
> In the dev-list
Hey Dane,
Thanks for bringing this up again.
In the dev-list thread you referred to I hesitated to drop Java <17, but it
is time. We see several projects that are moving past Java 8, and in
the process are also dropping Java 11 since it is not supported anymore
alongside JDK8
bytecode).
From: Dane Pitkin
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 1:02 PM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Drop Java 8 support
Hi all,
I would like to revisit the discussion of dropping Java 8 (and maybe 11)
from Arrow's Java implementation. See GH issue[1] below. This was also
Hi all,
I would like to revisit the discussion of dropping Java 8 (and maybe 11)
from Arrow's Java implementation. See GH issue[1] below. This was also
discussed in the last Arrow community sync meeting on 2024-04-24.
For context, this was discussed[2] last year on this mailing list. We
decided
24 matches
Mail list logo
