samza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Brown <...@mult.ifario.us>
Subject Re: Recommended JDK version?
Date Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:37:17 GMT
JDK6 will have been EOL'd for *two years* come February next year[1].
IMHO, the only reason to still build for older JDKs is as a convenient
proxy for Android support.

[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html

—
prb@mult.ifario.us | Multifarious, Inc. | http://mult.ifario.us/

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Eric Sammer <esammer@scalingdata.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric had been requesting the JDK6 support on Twitter
> > (https://twitter.com/esammer/status/516681461219737600). In response,
> > SAMZA-455 was opened but not much lobbying was done there.
> >
> > @Eric, is it still the case that you feel JDK6 is a hard requirement?
> > You made a strong case in the JIRA.  I note that Hadoop is currently
> > going JDK7 in 2.7.
> >
>
> Thanks for remembering. :)
>
> At the end of the day, there's some threshold where, if N% of projects drop
> support, users are forced to upgrade. When they do, they tend to do
> everything on a box (and its cluster) together. Mixed-mode deployments
> (e.g. Samza @ JDK7, Kafka @ 7, HDFS @ 6) is a recipe for disaster. The
> short way of saying that is minVersion(commonProjectsUsedTogether) is the
> ideal version to support. If Hadoop and others are dropping support, it's
> probably fine. I think the most important thing is that it's clearly
> communicated prior to doing so (insert big discussion about deprecation
> cycles on "supported platforms"). We weren't able to use Samza as part of
> our product as a result of minimum versions. Scala-based projects have
> historically been an enormous pain in this regard. I don't know how many
> others will be in that boat.
>
>
> > Would it work for Samza 0.8 to be the last to provide JDK6 support?
> > It's likely that Samza 0.9 won't be out for at least a few months, and
> > Eric had proposed a strawman approach of continuing JDK6 support for
> > six months (back in early November).  So, it's likely that 0.9 would
> > reasonably closely meet that timeframe and could be the first
> > JDK7-only release...
> >
>
> I think that's probably fine. It sounds like 0.8 will have a good lifecycle
> prior to 0.9 taking over, giving folks enough runway to plan for a JVM
> upgrade. Like I said, when we evaluated Samza, we were blocked on the
> dependency. With our timing, it forced us on to other projects, as much as
> we really liked and wanted to use Samza. I think there's a big divide in
> terms of tolerance of supported platforms between building internal systems
> (i.e. SaaS, or in-house) and building "enterprise software" (i.e. software
> you ship to folks). I don't pretend our requirements are indicative of the
> majority or important to everyone. I also respect the desire for forward
> motion in what's supported, and what features are accessible.
>
> The next discussion is probably around which version of Scala to track for
> the Samza community over the next N months. There are some obvious
> contentious positions[1] on Java 8 being required there as well. That's an
> even tougher nut to crack. Some of the related projects still have some
> issues running on 8 (ZK, or at least a few months ago when I tried it).
>
> [1] http://scala-lang.org/news/2.12-roadmap
>
> Thanks all!
>
>
> > -jakob
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Chris Riccomini
> > <criccomini@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > We've reached a bit of an impasse between upgrading to Scala 2.11:
> > >
> > >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-469
> > >
> > > And deprecating JDK 6:
> > >
> > >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-455
> > >
> > > It looks as though Scalatra 2.3, which is required for Scala 2.11
> > support,
> > > was built using JDK 7. This means that upgrading to Scala 2.11 forces
> us
> > > to deprecate JDK 6. It is possible for us to work around this by
> > > eliminating the Scalatra dependency, but this would require some work
> in
> > > samza-yarn.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On 11/4/14 6:58 AM, "Martin Kleppmann" <martin@kleppmann.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Tommy,
> > >>
> > >>There was a discussion about minimum JDK requirements a few months ago,
> > >>and at the time, nobody was asking for JDK 6 support, so we bumped the
> > >>requirement up to JDK 7. However, in the meantime, there have been some
> > >>requests for JDK 6.
> > >>
> > >>I've tried to summarise the state of the discussion on this ticket:
> > >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-455 -- please chime in
> > there.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Martin
> > >>
> > >>On 4 Nov 2014, at 13:05, Tommy Becker <tobecker@tivo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hey folks,
> > >>> I've noticed that the Samza jars from Maven are compiled for JDK 7.
> I
> > >>>don't see anything about a minimum JDK version on the site.  We are
> > >>>currently still on JDK 6 and I'm trying to decide whether we should
go
> > >>>ahead and upgrade or whether we can recompile Samza for JDK 6.  What
> are
> > >>>your thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>> -Tommy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>>
> > >>> This email and any attachments may contain confidential and
> privileged
> > >>>material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
> > >>>copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others
> is
> > >>>prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> > >>>sender immediately and permanently delete this email and any
> > >>>attachments. No employee or agent of TiVo Inc. is authorized to
> conclude
> > >>>any binding agreement on behalf of TiVo Inc. by email. Binding
> > >>>agreements with TiVo Inc. may only be made by a signed written
> > agreement.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E. Sammer
> CTO - ScalingData
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message