Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Joshua McKenzie]

Another interesting data point from our site:
https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/new/java11.html?highlight=support

Support Matrix


The support matrix for the Java versions for compiling and running Apache
Cassandra 4.0 is detailed in Table 1. The build version is along the
vertical axis and the run version is along the horizontal axis.

Table 1 : Support Matrix for Java
  Java 8 (Run) Java 11 (Run)
Java 8 (Build) Supported Supported
Java 11(Build) Not Supported SupportedI'm sure the ASF ML is going to
butcher this, but right now our site seems to state that running on Java 11
is supported.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:23 PM  wrote:

> Should clarify - not saying automated tests are enough. Thinking we should
> articulate better what supported means (all tools work, etc - manually
> checking the swath of stuff that’s lacking automated testing assuming we
> even have a good idea of that scope).
>
> If we’re committing to all automated suites work on 11 and we’ll block 4.0
> on bugs we find in jdk11, I think we should do the last small pct of work
> to formally support it.
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 11:18 PM, Joshua McKenzie 
> wrote:
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[joshua . mckenzie]

Should clarify - not saying automated tests are enough. Thinking we should 
articulate better what supported means (all tools work, etc - manually checking 
the swath of stuff that’s lacking automated testing assuming we even have a 
good idea of that scope).

If we’re committing to all automated suites work on 11 and we’ll block 4.0 on 
bugs we find in jdk11, I think we should do the last small pct of work to 
formally support it. 

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 11:18 PM, Joshua McKenzie  wrote:
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Joshua McKenzie]

>
> This stance does not mean that java 11 testing is on-par with our
> java 8 testing, it only means we treat reports of issues equality
> regardless of JDK version.

Outside our automated testing suites, what other testing as a project
community do we consider necessary to dub something "supported"?


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:51 PM J. D. Jordan 
wrote:

> This makes sense to me. A bug is a bug regardless of the JVM that exposes
> it.
>
> Java 11 still considered experimental.  Users should understand they are
> on the less trodden path when using it.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 7:36 PM, David Capwell  wrote:
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[J. D. Jordan]

This makes sense to me. A bug is a bug regardless of the JVM that exposes it.

Java 11 still considered experimental.  Users should understand they are on the 
less trodden path when using it.

-Jeremiah

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 7:36 PM, David Capwell  wrote:
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[David Capwell]

>
> s/ignore/defer until after 4.0 GA/g (semantic difference that may not sway
> you)


Even if it is experimental,  I feel that it would be best for users if we
treat java 11 bug reports the same as java 8 bug reports; it would be a bad
user experience if a user found out we knew about an issue but wanted to
ignore it in favor of releasing.

If we block the release on JDK11 issues we find, it *seems* to me that
> that's the same as saying "JDK11 is supported"


To me there is a big difference.  If users report bugs that only happen on
JDK11 then we should treat those as normal bugs found while testing the
release.  This stance does not mean that java 11 testing is on-par with our
java 8 testing, it only means we treat reports of issues equality
regardless of JDK version.

stance on found defects for JDK8 as we have for JDK11


Yep, that is what I am asking for, we should have the same stance on found
defects for JDK 8 and JDK 11.

What in my mental model here ^ doesn't match yours? :) Seems there's some
> gap.


I believe I understand your last comment as "I am ok treating bug reports
on JDK11 the same way as JDK8", if so then we are on the same page.  The
other comments about deferring would imply we have a different stance than
we do for JDK8; which I feel is the main gap?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:53 PM Joshua McKenzie 
wrote:

> >
> > java 11 is experimental, so lets ignore issue X
>
> s/ignore/defer until after 4.0 GA/g (semantic difference that may not sway
> you)
>
> If we block the release on JDK11 issues we find, it *seems* to me that
> that's the same as saying "JDK11 is supported" assuming we have the same a)
> level of testing and b) stance on found defects for JDK8 as we have for
> JDK11. Which I'm totally fine with fwiw.
>
> What in my mental model here ^ doesn't match yours? :) Seems there's some
> gap.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM David Capwell  wrote:
>
> > My statement was more coming from the fact that if we test on java 8 and
> > find an issue it is a release blocker, so saying java 11 should be
> treated
> > with the same regard as java 8 when it comes to filing/fixing issues;
> when
> > it comes to filing and fixing issues, we shouldn't have different stances
> > on different JVMs.  I don't want us to say "java 11 is experimental, so
> > lets ignore issue X", we will have a hard time getting out of
> > experimental if we have this stance.
> >
> > Now, don't get me wrong.  If something is very specific to java 11 and we
> > can reason that the impact to users is near zero, I am fine not marking
> the
> > issue as a release blocker.  An example is that jvm dtests crash the JVM
> > because of a race condition with CMS and class unloading, this issue
> > shouldn't block the release but we should still find a way to make it
> > stable (changed flags when running tests on java 11 to avoid the issue).
> >
> > With regard to #2, we have a ways to go to get CI on-par but there is
> > traction already on both fronts.  I run the java (not python) suite on
> java
> > 11 frequently and see that known flaky tests are still flaky on java 11,
> > though the suite tends to pass with enough retries.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:51 AM Joshua McKenzie 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> > > > release
> > >
> > > Maybe we let 2 run and see how many issues there are before we call
> > release
> > > blocking?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:05 PM David Capwell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would propose the following:
> > > >
> > > > 1) leave jdk 11 marked as experimental
> > > > 2) make sure CI runs jdk 8 and jdk 11 for all builds (circle /
> jenkins)
> > > > 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> > > > release
> > > >
> > > > This should get us in good shape to potentially be ready to flip the
> > > switch
> > > > in 4.1 or even 4.0.1; given that not everyone is signing up to test
> > java
> > > > 11, #3 might not be enough to fully mark stable.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM Joshua McKenzie <
> jmcken...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Where did we land on this? Don't seem to have a clear consensus
> from
> > > > thread
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:02 PM Deepak Vohra
> > >  > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >  The same link was posted earlier also.
> > > > > > For Java 8 and 11 the poll result is very similar.
> > > > > > Java 8 =58.4%Java 11 =22.56%
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, July 20, 2020, 04:38:03 p.m. PDT, Joshua McKenzie
> <
> > > > > > jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  That's remarkably close to the jrebel results for 2020:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#java-version
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Came across this this past weekend doing unrelated research;
> can't
> > > > vouch
> > > > > > for 

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Joshua McKenzie]

>
> java 11 is experimental, so lets ignore issue X

s/ignore/defer until after 4.0 GA/g (semantic difference that may not sway
you)

If we block the release on JDK11 issues we find, it *seems* to me that
that's the same as saying "JDK11 is supported" assuming we have the same a)
level of testing and b) stance on found defects for JDK8 as we have for
JDK11. Which I'm totally fine with fwiw.

What in my mental model here ^ doesn't match yours? :) Seems there's some
gap.


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM David Capwell  wrote:

> My statement was more coming from the fact that if we test on java 8 and
> find an issue it is a release blocker, so saying java 11 should be treated
> with the same regard as java 8 when it comes to filing/fixing issues; when
> it comes to filing and fixing issues, we shouldn't have different stances
> on different JVMs.  I don't want us to say "java 11 is experimental, so
> lets ignore issue X", we will have a hard time getting out of
> experimental if we have this stance.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong.  If something is very specific to java 11 and we
> can reason that the impact to users is near zero, I am fine not marking the
> issue as a release blocker.  An example is that jvm dtests crash the JVM
> because of a race condition with CMS and class unloading, this issue
> shouldn't block the release but we should still find a way to make it
> stable (changed flags when running tests on java 11 to avoid the issue).
>
> With regard to #2, we have a ways to go to get CI on-par but there is
> traction already on both fronts.  I run the java (not python) suite on java
> 11 frequently and see that known flaky tests are still flaky on java 11,
> though the suite tends to pass with enough retries.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:51 AM Joshua McKenzie 
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> > > release
> >
> > Maybe we let 2 run and see how many issues there are before we call
> release
> > blocking?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:05 PM David Capwell 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I would propose the following:
> > >
> > > 1) leave jdk 11 marked as experimental
> > > 2) make sure CI runs jdk 8 and jdk 11 for all builds (circle / jenkins)
> > > 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> > > release
> > >
> > > This should get us in good shape to potentially be ready to flip the
> > switch
> > > in 4.1 or even 4.0.1; given that not everyone is signing up to test
> java
> > > 11, #3 might not be enough to fully mark stable.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM Joshua McKenzie 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Where did we land on this? Don't seem to have a clear consensus from
> > > thread
> > > > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:02 PM Deepak Vohra
> >  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  The same link was posted earlier also.
> > > > > For Java 8 and 11 the poll result is very similar.
> > > > > Java 8 =58.4%Java 11 =22.56%
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, July 20, 2020, 04:38:03 p.m. PDT, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > > > jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  That's remarkably close to the jrebel results for 2020:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#java-version
> > > > >
> > > > >  Came across this this past weekend doing unrelated research; can't
> > > vouch
> > > > > for the accuracy / methods / etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:32 PM Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Got it, thanks for the correction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Williams <
> dri...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on
> it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I still dont get it, because you can't use any released
> version
> > > of
> > > > > > > > cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin <
> > > > pmcfa...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 161 votes
> > > > > > > > > <= JDK8: 59%
> > > > > > > > > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > > > > > > > > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > > > > > > > > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp <
> sn...@snazy.de
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > Robert Stupp
> > > > > > > > > > @snazy
> > > > > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[David Capwell]

My statement was more coming from the fact that if we test on java 8 and
find an issue it is a release blocker, so saying java 11 should be treated
with the same regard as java 8 when it comes to filing/fixing issues; when
it comes to filing and fixing issues, we shouldn't have different stances
on different JVMs.  I don't want us to say "java 11 is experimental, so
lets ignore issue X", we will have a hard time getting out of
experimental if we have this stance.

Now, don't get me wrong.  If something is very specific to java 11 and we
can reason that the impact to users is near zero, I am fine not marking the
issue as a release blocker.  An example is that jvm dtests crash the JVM
because of a race condition with CMS and class unloading, this issue
shouldn't block the release but we should still find a way to make it
stable (changed flags when running tests on java 11 to avoid the issue).

With regard to #2, we have a ways to go to get CI on-par but there is
traction already on both fronts.  I run the java (not python) suite on java
11 frequently and see that known flaky tests are still flaky on java 11,
though the suite tends to pass with enough retries.


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:51 AM Joshua McKenzie 
wrote:

> >
> > 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> > release
>
> Maybe we let 2 run and see how many issues there are before we call release
> blocking?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:05 PM David Capwell  wrote:
>
> > I would propose the following:
> >
> > 1) leave jdk 11 marked as experimental
> > 2) make sure CI runs jdk 8 and jdk 11 for all builds (circle / jenkins)
> > 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> > release
> >
> > This should get us in good shape to potentially be ready to flip the
> switch
> > in 4.1 or even 4.0.1; given that not everyone is signing up to test java
> > 11, #3 might not be enough to fully mark stable.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM Joshua McKenzie 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Where did we land on this? Don't seem to have a clear consensus from
> > thread
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:02 PM Deepak Vohra
>  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >  The same link was posted earlier also.
> > > > For Java 8 and 11 the poll result is very similar.
> > > > Java 8 =58.4%Java 11 =22.56%
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, July 20, 2020, 04:38:03 p.m. PDT, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > > jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  That's remarkably close to the jrebel results for 2020:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#java-version
> > > >
> > > >  Came across this this past weekend doing unrelated research; can't
> > vouch
> > > > for the accuracy / methods / etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:32 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Got it, thanks for the correction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Williams  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version
> > of
> > > > > > > cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin <
> > > pmcfa...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 161 votes
> > > > > > > > <= JDK8: 59%
> > > > > > > > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > > > > > > > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > > > > > > > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > Robert Stupp
> > > > > > > > > @snazy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Zgc
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp <
> sn...@snazy.de
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa <
> jji...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra)
> > > > aren’t
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what
> does
> > > the
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java
> > 11?
> > > > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Joshua McKenzie]

>
> 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> release

Maybe we let 2 run and see how many issues there are before we call release
blocking?



On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:05 PM David Capwell  wrote:

> I would propose the following:
>
> 1) leave jdk 11 marked as experimental
> 2) make sure CI runs jdk 8 and jdk 11 for all builds (circle / jenkins)
> 3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the
> release
>
> This should get us in good shape to potentially be ready to flip the switch
> in 4.1 or even 4.0.1; given that not everyone is signing up to test java
> 11, #3 might not be enough to fully mark stable.
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM Joshua McKenzie 
> wrote:
>
> > Where did we land on this? Don't seem to have a clear consensus from
> thread
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:02 PM Deepak Vohra  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  The same link was posted earlier also.
> > > For Java 8 and 11 the poll result is very similar.
> > > Java 8 =58.4%Java 11 =22.56%
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, July 20, 2020, 04:38:03 p.m. PDT, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >  That's remarkably close to the jrebel results for 2020:
> > >
> > > https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#java-version
> > >
> > >  Came across this this past weekend doing unrelated research; can't
> vouch
> > > for the accuracy / methods / etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:32 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Got it, thanks for the correction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Williams 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version
> of
> > > > > > cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin <
> > pmcfa...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > > > > > >
> > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 161 votes
> > > > > > > <= JDK8: 59%
> > > > > > > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > > > > > > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > > > > > > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > Robert Stupp
> > > > > > > > @snazy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zgc
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra)
> > > aren’t
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does
> > the
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java
> 11?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[David Capwell]

I would propose the following:

1) leave jdk 11 marked as experimental
2) make sure CI runs jdk 8 and jdk 11 for all builds (circle / jenkins)
3) during 4.0 qualification, issues found on jdk 11 should block the release

This should get us in good shape to potentially be ready to flip the switch
in 4.1 or even 4.0.1; given that not everyone is signing up to test java
11, #3 might not be enough to fully mark stable.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM Joshua McKenzie 
wrote:

> Where did we land on this? Don't seem to have a clear consensus from thread
> discussion.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:02 PM Deepak Vohra 
> wrote:
>
> >  The same link was posted earlier also.
> > For Java 8 and 11 the poll result is very similar.
> > Java 8 =58.4%Java 11 =22.56%
> >
> >
> > On Monday, July 20, 2020, 04:38:03 p.m. PDT, Joshua McKenzie <
> > jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >  That's remarkably close to the jrebel results for 2020:
> >
> > https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#java-version
> >
> >  Came across this this past weekend doing unrelated research; can't vouch
> > for the accuracy / methods / etc.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:32 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >
> > > Got it, thanks for the correction.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Williams 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on it.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version of
> > > > > cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin <
> pmcfa...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > > > > >
> https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 161 votes
> > > > > > <= JDK8: 59%
> > > > > > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > > > > > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > > > > > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > Robert Stupp
> > > > > > > @snazy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Zgc
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra)
> > aren’t
> > > > even
> > > > > > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does
> the
> > > > project
> > > > > > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > -
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Joshua McKenzie]

Where did we land on this? Don't seem to have a clear consensus from thread
discussion.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:02 PM Deepak Vohra 
wrote:

>  The same link was posted earlier also.
> For Java 8 and 11 the poll result is very similar.
> Java 8 =58.4%Java 11 =22.56%
>
>
> On Monday, July 20, 2020, 04:38:03 p.m. PDT, Joshua McKenzie <
> jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>  That's remarkably close to the jrebel results for 2020:
>
> https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#java-version
>
>  Came across this this past weekend doing unrelated research; can't vouch
> for the accuracy / methods / etc.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:32 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>
> > Got it, thanks for the correction.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Williams 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on it.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version of
> > > > cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> > > > >
> > > > > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> > > > >
> > > > > 161 votes
> > > > > <= JDK8: 59%
> > > > > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > > > > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > > > > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > —
> > > > > > Robert Stupp
> > > > > > @snazy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Zgc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra)
> aren’t
> > > even
> > > > > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the
> > > project
> > > > > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > -
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jeff Jirsa]

Got it, thanks for the correction.


On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Williams  wrote:

> I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on it.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >
> > I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version of
> > cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> > >
> > > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> > >
> > > 161 votes
> > > <= JDK8: 59%
> > > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Robert Stupp
> > > > @snazy
> > > >
> > > > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Zgc
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t
> even
> > > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the
> project
> > > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Brandon Williams]

I believe you can run them on 11, but you can't build them on it.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>
> I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version of
> cassandra with anything other than jdk8.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin  wrote:
>
> > Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> >
> > Offered up as data to be used as you will.
> >
> > 161 votes
> > <= JDK8: 59%
> > JDK9 or 10: 7%
> > JDK11 or 12: 27%
> > JDK13 or 14: 7%
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp  wrote:
> >
> > > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Robert Stupp
> > > @snazy
> > >
> > > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Zgc
> > > >
> > > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 
> > > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even
> > > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project
> > > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jeff Jirsa]

I still dont get it, because you can't use any released version of
cassandra with anything other than jdk8.



On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:50 PM Patrick McFadin  wrote:

> Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
> https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
>
> Offered up as data to be used as you will.
>
> 161 votes
> <= JDK8: 59%
> JDK9 or 10: 7%
> JDK11 or 12: 27%
> JDK13 or 14: 7%
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp  wrote:
>
> > Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
> >
> > —
> > Robert Stupp
> > @snazy
> >
> > > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > >
> > > Zgc
> > >
> > >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even
> > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project
> > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > >>
> > >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Patrick McFadin]

Follow-up on the informal poll I did on twitter:
https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21

Offered up as data to be used as you will.

161 votes
<= JDK8: 59%
JDK9 or 10: 7%
JDK11 or 12: 27%
JDK13 or 14: 7%



On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp  wrote:

> Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.
>
> —
> Robert Stupp
> @snazy
>
> > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >
> > Zgc
> >
> >> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even
> prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project
> gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> >>
> >> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Robert Stupp]

Yea, ZGC is kinda tricky in 11.

—
Robert Stupp
@snazy

> On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:02, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> 
> Zgc
> 
>> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even prod 
>>> ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project gain 
>>> from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
>> 
>> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[David Capwell]

I think we should start getting automated testing to use java 11 in 4.0,
but that stability on 4.0 should not be a blocker for 4.0.  Mick is doing a
lot of work to get builds running with java 11 (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15809) and a lot more work
is needed to get java 11 on-par with java 8 in CI.

We also lack a lot of longer running tests in CI, so as the testing epics
start getting fleshed out, I hope we can make better use of java 11 earlier
rather than adding after.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:56 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:

> My goal here was to collect information, specifically around what people's
> needs are and what people are testing.  Some teams have a mandate they need
> to move to Java 11, Python 3, etc.  Some just want to take advantage of
> features like low overhead heap profiling [1]. I don't have the visibility
> that I used to at TLP, but I do remember there were quite a few teams out
> there looking to move to JDK 11.
>
> My original email didn't take a position on whether or not we should remove
> the experimental flag, I don't know if we should.  I'm trying to figure it
> out.  If we do, then there's some issues we have to address, like our CI as
> Josh pointed out.
>
> As a user, if I were to download a brand new release of some software that
> didn't support the latest stable JDK 2 years after it was released, I'd be
> a bit worried, and I think it would reflect poorly on the project.
>
> Anyways, the TL;DR is that if people are doing large scale testing of 4.0
> with Java 11 with the intent of putting it in production (See Jon
> Meredith's email), then it's a matter of determining what bar we need to
> cross in order to say JDK 11 support isn't experimental anymore.
>
> [1] https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8171119
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:02 AM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>
> > Zgc
> >
> > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even
> > prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project
> > gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jon Haddad]

My goal here was to collect information, specifically around what people's
needs are and what people are testing.  Some teams have a mandate they need
to move to Java 11, Python 3, etc.  Some just want to take advantage of
features like low overhead heap profiling [1]. I don't have the visibility
that I used to at TLP, but I do remember there were quite a few teams out
there looking to move to JDK 11.

My original email didn't take a position on whether or not we should remove
the experimental flag, I don't know if we should.  I'm trying to figure it
out.  If we do, then there's some issues we have to address, like our CI as
Josh pointed out.

As a user, if I were to download a brand new release of some software that
didn't support the latest stable JDK 2 years after it was released, I'd be
a bit worried, and I think it would reflect poorly on the project.

Anyways, the TL;DR is that if people are doing large scale testing of 4.0
with Java 11 with the intent of putting it in production (See Jon
Meredith's email), then it's a matter of determining what bar we need to
cross in order to say JDK 11 support isn't experimental anymore.

[1] https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8171119


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:02 AM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> Zgc
>
> > On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even
> prod ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project
> gain from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> >
> > Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jeff Jirsa]

Zgc

> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>> 
>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even prod 
>> ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project gain 
>> from revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
> 
> Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Robert Stupp]

If I understand correctly, you’re proposing to “officially support” Java 8 and 
11 (i.e. remove the “experimental” tag for Java 11).
+1 on that from my side. It totally makes sense to me for 4.0.

Don’t want to hijack the original thread (as it’s just about C* 4.0), but some 
thoughts about post-4.0:

Java 8 gets (probably just critical) patches until 2026 (e.g. from 
adoptopenjdk, not sure about other vendors). But I suspect 2026 is really the 
very last date until 8 finally gets retired. Considering that users still run 
C* 2.1 (released 2014) and older, it’s probably reasonable to plan to remove 
Java 8-support in the next version (i.e. 4.1) and require the last LTS Java 
(11, 17, etc)  _and_ the current non-LTS (on a best-effort/experimental basis).

Especially the “new GCs” (Z, Shenandoah) and a bunch of other upcoming features 
(e.g. Loom, Panama, Records) are very interesting and beneficial for the 
project.

I did some experiments and a recent build works against Java 14 (and a nightly 
build of 15 IIRC). A couple of unit tests need to be adopted (fix the no longer 
working java.lang.ref.Field code in some unit tests) and Nashorn needs to be 
replaced (it has recently been removed). It is not that much work, it just 
needs to be done.

—
Robert Stupp
@snazy

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 20:42, Jon Haddad  wrote:
> 
> Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2 years
> since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close to
> that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at this
> point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's primarily
> targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good idea.
> 
> To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you planning
> on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can say I
> don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with 11
> at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended version
> and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who have a
> restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> 
> To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are you
> planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
> 
> [1] https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Robert Stupp]

> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even prod 
> ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project gain from 
> revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?

Can you elaborate on what’s not even prod ready in Java 11?

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jeff Jirsa]

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Jon Haddad  wrote:
> 
> Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2 years
> since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close to
> that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at this
> point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's primarily
> targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good idea.

LTS is a thing 

> 
> To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you planning
> on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can say I
> don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with 11
> at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended version
> and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who have a
> restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> 
> To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are you
> planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?

Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even prod ready 
in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project gain from 
revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jon Meredith]

The majority of the testing that I'm doing and likely the people I
work with day to day tests 4.0 on Java 11, so we should gain some
experience over the next few months.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:27 PM Sumanth Pasupuleti
 wrote:
>
> We at Netflix have been testing 4.0 on Java 8, and we do not plan to
> use Java 11 yet for C*, since we are, and for the considerable future will
> be running Java 8 only in production.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Patrick McFadin  wrote:
>
> > JDK8 seems like the safe devil we know, but in the interest of trying to
> > gather a bit of data, I just posted a twitter poll.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:26 PM Elliott Sims 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, I'd planned to upgrade to 4.0 on JDK8 but only wait a few
> > weeks
> > > before starting to update to JDK11 afterwards.  Everything else we run's
> > > been updated to JDK11, so the Cassandra clusters are the odd one out at
> > > this point.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jordan West  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing this up Jon! My current thinking is we should
> > > > officially support both 8 and 11. That increases the surface area we
> > need
> > > > to test but I think its hard to predict what different users will run
> > > given
> > > > the current transition in the Java landscape.
> > > >
> > > > Jordan
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2
> > > > years
> > > > > since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close
> > > to
> > > > > that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but
> > at
> > > > this
> > > > > point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's
> > > > primarily
> > > > > targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good
> > > idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you
> > > planning
> > > > > on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can
> > > say I
> > > > > don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing
> > with
> > > 11
> > > > > at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended
> > > > version
> > > > > and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who
> > > have a
> > > > > restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> > > > >
> > > > > To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release,
> > are
> > > > you
> > > > > planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Sumanth Pasupuleti]

We at Netflix have been testing 4.0 on Java 8, and we do not plan to
use Java 11 yet for C*, since we are, and for the considerable future will
be running Java 8 only in production.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Patrick McFadin  wrote:

> JDK8 seems like the safe devil we know, but in the interest of trying to
> gather a bit of data, I just posted a twitter poll.
>
> https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:26 PM Elliott Sims 
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd planned to upgrade to 4.0 on JDK8 but only wait a few
> weeks
> > before starting to update to JDK11 afterwards.  Everything else we run's
> > been updated to JDK11, so the Cassandra clusters are the odd one out at
> > this point.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jordan West  wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for bringing this up Jon! My current thinking is we should
> > > officially support both 8 and 11. That increases the surface area we
> need
> > > to test but I think its hard to predict what different users will run
> > given
> > > the current transition in the Java landscape.
> > >
> > > Jordan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2
> > > years
> > > > since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close
> > to
> > > > that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but
> at
> > > this
> > > > point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's
> > > primarily
> > > > targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good
> > idea.
> > > >
> > > > To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you
> > planning
> > > > on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can
> > say I
> > > > don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing
> with
> > 11
> > > > at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended
> > > version
> > > > and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who
> > have a
> > > > restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> > > >
> > > > To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release,
> are
> > > you
> > > > planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Patrick McFadin]

JDK8 seems like the safe devil we know, but in the interest of trying to
gather a bit of data, I just posted a twitter poll.

https://twitter.com/patrickmcfadin/status/1282791302065557504?s=21


On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:26 PM Elliott Sims  wrote:

> Personally, I'd planned to upgrade to 4.0 on JDK8 but only wait a few weeks
> before starting to update to JDK11 afterwards.  Everything else we run's
> been updated to JDK11, so the Cassandra clusters are the odd one out at
> this point.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jordan West  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up Jon! My current thinking is we should
> > officially support both 8 and 11. That increases the surface area we need
> > to test but I think its hard to predict what different users will run
> given
> > the current transition in the Java landscape.
> >
> > Jordan
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:
> >
> > > Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2
> > years
> > > since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close
> to
> > > that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at
> > this
> > > point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's
> > primarily
> > > targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good
> idea.
> > >
> > > To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you
> planning
> > > on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can
> say I
> > > don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with
> 11
> > > at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended
> > version
> > > and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who
> have a
> > > restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> > >
> > > To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are
> > you
> > > planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Joshua McKenzie]

All the major linux vendors are supporting JDK8 LTS (like 2024+ or
something) if I'm not mistaken, so I don't think there's a burning *need* to
push for JDK11 support specifically in 4.0. To Mick's point, no reason why
project folks that want JDK11 officially supported can't get started
working on validating it now and we give it our blessing in whatever C*
patch rel we've validated it on right?

If most folks are testing with 11 at this point,

How do we get this data? I think most of the DS folks are testing on JDK8
since that's the one we as a project have been signalling as officially
supported for 4.0. Anyone else have another PoV and been doing testing on
JDK11 instead? Are there features JDK11 brings to the table (improvements
in GC, etc) that are compelling that increase the urgency of pushing for
this?

Isn't our official CI all JDK8?
https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Cassandra/

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:26 PM Elliott Sims  wrote:

> Personally, I'd planned to upgrade to 4.0 on JDK8 but only wait a few weeks
> before starting to update to JDK11 afterwards.  Everything else we run's
> been updated to JDK11, so the Cassandra clusters are the odd one out at
> this point.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jordan West  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up Jon! My current thinking is we should
> > officially support both 8 and 11. That increases the surface area we need
> > to test but I think its hard to predict what different users will run
> given
> > the current transition in the Java landscape.
> >
> > Jordan
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:
> >
> > > Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2
> > years
> > > since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close
> to
> > > that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at
> > this
> > > point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's
> > primarily
> > > targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good
> idea.
> > >
> > > To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you
> planning
> > > on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can
> say I
> > > don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with
> 11
> > > at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended
> > version
> > > and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who
> have a
> > > restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> > >
> > > To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are
> > you
> > > planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Elliott Sims]

Personally, I'd planned to upgrade to 4.0 on JDK8 but only wait a few weeks
before starting to update to JDK11 afterwards.  Everything else we run's
been updated to JDK11, so the Cassandra clusters are the odd one out at
this point.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jordan West  wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up Jon! My current thinking is we should
> officially support both 8 and 11. That increases the surface area we need
> to test but I think its hard to predict what different users will run given
> the current transition in the Java landscape.
>
> Jordan
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:
>
> > Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2
> years
> > since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close to
> > that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at
> this
> > point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's
> primarily
> > targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good idea.
> >
> > To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you planning
> > on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can say I
> > don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with 11
> > at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended
> version
> > and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who have a
> > restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
> >
> > To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are
> you
> > planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
> >
> > [1]
> https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Deepak Vohra]

 
Jon,
But Java 11 hasn't been tested in production. I would need to submit a patch 
for documentation if Java 11 is made recommended version. 
Based on a recent survey the majority are still using Java 8, probably because 
it involves code review and update to migrate to a latter version. 
"At 58%, the majority of respondents reported using Java 8 as the programming 
language of choice in their main application. Java 11 was the next highest at 
23% of respondents. "
https://www.jrebel.com/blog/2020-java-technology-report#:~:text=At%2058%25%2C%20the%20majority%20of,using%20Java%2012%20or%20newer.
Deepak

On Monday, July 13, 2020, 11:42:18 a.m. PDT, Jon Haddad 
 wrote:  
 
 Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2 years
since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close to
that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at this
point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's primarily
targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good idea.

To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you planning
on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can say I
don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with 11
at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended version
and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who have a
restriction that prevents them from upgrading.

To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are you
planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?

[1] https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
  

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Jordan West]

Thanks for bringing this up Jon! My current thinking is we should
officially support both 8 and 11. That increases the surface area we need
to test but I think its hard to predict what different users will run given
the current transition in the Java landscape.

Jordan

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:42 AM Jon Haddad  wrote:

> Support for Java 11 was added a long time ago, and it's been about 2 years
> since it was released (Sept 2018).  Had we released Cassandra 4 close to
> that date, I'd be fine with keeping the status as experimental, but at this
> point I'm wondering if releasing a new major version of C* that's primarily
> targeting Java 8 as the only "official" supported version is a good idea.
>
> To those of you that are planning on rolling out C* 4.0, are you planning
> on using Java 8 still, or moving to 11?  Speaking for myself, I can say I
> don't think I'd want to use 8 anymore.  If most folks are testing with 11
> at this point, I think we should consider making 11 the recommended version
> and really only encouraging Java 8 for legacy purposes - teams who have a
> restriction that prevents them from upgrading.
>
> To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are you
> planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?
>
> [1] https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisiting Java 11's experimental status

[Mick Semb Wever]

> To those of you planning on moving to 4.0 soon after it's release, are you
> planning on deploying to JDK 11 or 8?


Curious, what's the harm in leaving it in experimental until 4.1/4.0.x ? I
thought we are emphasising putting in place a new precedence of Quality
First. The age, or stability, of JDK11 itself isn't the all here  :shrug:

I suspect most will upgrade to 4.0 on java 8 …wait a bit… and then upgrade
to java 11. (And again wait a bit before trying any of the new collectors.)
I would certainly recommend that approach. And won't driving momentum onto
JDK 11 be just as easily/much done with blog posts, benchmarks and articles?