Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

So maybe what we should do now is deprecate Java 7 support but not drop it yet. I believe this is also what Spark has done. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Agree, I would target this for Beam 3.0.0. > > Regards > JB > > On 10/17/2017 06:43 PM,

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Should this be considered a backwards-incompatible change? If so, do we need to wait until Beam 3.0.0 is released? On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > I am bringing the subject to the user mailing list to get some > feedback because it makes sense anyway to

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

I am bringing the subject to the user mailing list to get some feedback because it makes sense anyway to discuss this there. But I also agree with Kenneth about the fact that runner authors must weight in on this subject. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

+1 to having runner maintainers weigh in as proxies. Added a few in case they haven't followed this thread. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Eugene Kirpichov < kirpic...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Agreed that polling Dataflow users makes sense, though I think they are > very unlikely to have

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Agreed that polling Dataflow users makes sense, though I think they are very unlikely to have concerns, because unlike Spark/Flink users they wouldn't have a "cluster" that they need to migrate to a new JVM: they'd only need to recompile their pipelines with JDK 8. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:21

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

I think the Flink and Spark runner maintainers can weigh in here; given that both of those systems are moving to Java 8, I doubt they will have concerns. Same is true for the Dataflow runner - we should probably poll Dataflow users to make sure this is not a problem for any of them. On Mon, Oct

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Reuven - do you mean e.g. a poll on the Flink mailing list asking whether there are Flink users who use Beam with Java 7? Or just people who use Flink with Java 7? (the latter question I'd assume was settled by the poll about making Flink itself Java8-only?) On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:32 PM

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

+1 to vote on @user. Not sure anyway it requires a formal vote. As Java 7 is deprecated, it should be an implicit "decision". Regards JB On 10/16/2017 04:35 PM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: Any progress on this? What is the proposed way to validate if users are still interested on Java 7? A vote on

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Yeah, a vote on user@ sounds like a good idea. Ismaël, would you be interested in driving this process, since you're already working on Java9 support and hence you have a good understanding of what's involved in a JDK version migration for a large project? As due diligence, we can look at how the

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Any progress on this? What is the proposed way to validate if users are still interested on Java 7? A vote on user or something different? On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Agree with polling Beam users as well as each runner's community in >

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Agree with polling Beam users as well as each runner's community in aggregate. On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Definitely agree > > > On 09/27/2017 06:00 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > >> I also think that it's time to seriously consider dropping

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Definitely agree On 09/27/2017 06:00 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: I also think that it's time to seriously consider dropping support for Java 7. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Daniel Oliveira wrote: Yes, just as Ismaël said it's a compilation blocker right now

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

+1 Regards JB On 09/27/2017 06:04 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: I would support this as well, however we probably should first poll current users of the Beam API to see if any of them rely on Java 7. Reuven On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: I

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

I would support this as well, however we probably should first poll current users of the Beam API to see if any of them rely on Java 7. Reuven On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > I also think that it's time to seriously consider dropping

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Yes, just as Ismaël said it's a compilation blocker right now despite that (I believe) we don't use the extension that's breaking. As for other ways to solve this, if there is a way to avoid compiling the advanced features of AutoValue that might be worth a try. We could also try to get a release

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

The current issue is that compilation fails on master because beam's parent pom is configured to fail if it finds warnings): -Werror However if you remove that line from the parent pom the compilation passes. Of course this does not mean that everything is solved for Java 9, there are some

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

AFAIK we don't use any advanced capabilities of AutoValue. Does that mean this issue is moot? I didn't quite understand from your email whether it is a compilation blocker for Beam or not. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:32 PM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Great that you are also working

Re: Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

Great that you are also working on this too Daniel and thanks for bringing this subject to the mailing list, I was waiting to my return to office next week, but you did it first :) Eugene for reference (This is the issue on the migration to Java 9), notice that here the goal is first that beam

Possibility of requiring Java 8 compiler for building Java 7 sources?

So I've been working on JDK 9 support for Beam, and I have a bug in AutoValue that can be fixed by updating our AutoValue dependency to the latest. The problem is that AutoValue from 1.5+ seems to be banned for Beam due to requiring Java 8 compilers. However, it should still be possible to compile