So all the asynchronous api will be introduced in 2.0 only?

And java7 has been end of life for more than one year...
And also, for a upgrade, I do not think it is a good idea to upgrade JDK
and HBase together. So you always need to upgrade to jdk8 or later first at
some time before upgrading to a jdk8 only HBase version, no matter you want
to upgrade to 2.0 or 1.4, this does not change.

2016-09-09 12:01 GMT+08:00 Ted Yu <[email protected]>:

> Yeah, we should keep support for Java 7 in branch-1.
>
> We can use CompletableFuture for 2.0 release.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we should wait until 2.0 before dropping support for less than
> JDK
> > 8. That's a pretty big deal. But, for 2.0, that would be fine IMHO.
> >
> > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Duo Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The main reason is the asynchronous api we want to introduce in HBase
> > > today. See HBASE-13784 and HBASE-16505.
> > >
> > > The CompletableFuture in java8 is very suitable to use as the return
> > value
> > > of a async method. We can not use it if we still want to support java7,
> > and
> > > sadly, there is no candidate which is good enough to replace
> > > CompletableFuture. ListenableFuture in guava or Promise in netty are
> > good,
> > > but we do not want to expose third-party classes in our public
> > > API(especially guava, you know...). And we can also implement our own
> > > ListenableFuture but it just a copy of guava. Or introduce a simple
> > > Callback interface which does not need much code(for us) but this is a
> > code
> > > style around 2000s so people will not like it...
> > >
> > > And luckily, I found that in our documentation
> > >
> > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#basic.prerequisites
> > >
> > > We only say that 1.3 will be compatible with jdk7, not all 1.x.
> > >
> > > So here I propose that we drop the support of jdk7 in a future 1.x
> > release,
> > > maybe 1.4? Thus we can use CompletableFuture in both master and
> branch-1.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
>

Reply via email to