spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com>
Subject Re: [discuss] ending support for Java 7 in Spark 2.0
Date Tue, 05 Apr 2016 14:06:21 GMT
Hi Sean,

See http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html

Java 7 hasn't EOLed yet. If you look at support you can get from Oracle,
it's actually goes to 2019. And you can even get more support after that.

Spark has always maintained great backward compatibility with other
systems, way beyond what vendors typically support. For example, we
supported Hadoop 1.x all the way until Spark 1.6 (basically the last
release), while all the vendors have dropped support for them already.

Putting my Databricks hat on we actually only support Java 8, but I think
it would be great to still support Java 7 in the upstream release for some
larger deployments. I like the idea of deprecating or at least strongly
encouraging people to update.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Sean Owen <sowen@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Following
> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12165#issuecomment-205791222
> I'd like to make a point about process and then answer points below.
>
> We have this funny system where anyone can propose a change, and any
> of a few people can veto a change unilaterally. The latter rarely
> comes up. 9 changes out of 10 nobody disagrees on; sometimes a
> committer will say 'no' to a change and nobody else with that bit
> disagrees.
>
> Sometimes it matters and here I see, what, 4 out of 5 people including
> committers supporting a particular change. A veto to oppose that is
> pretty drastic. It's not something to use because you or customers
> prefer a certain outcome. This reads like you're informing people
> you've changed your mind and that's the decision, when it can't work
> that way. I saw this happen to a lesser extent in the thread about
> Scala 2.10.
>
> It doesn't mean majority rules here either, but can I suggest you
> instead counter-propose an outcome that the people here voting in
> favor of what you're vetoing would probably also buy into? I bet
> everyone's willing to give wide accommodation to your concerns. It's
> probably not hard, like: let's plan to not support Java 7 in Spark
> 2.1.0. (Then we can debate the logic of that.)
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > some technology companies, are still using Java 7. One thing is that up
> > until this date, users still can't install openjdk 8 on Ubuntu by
> default. I
> > see that as an indication that it is too early to drop Java 7.
>
> I have Java 8 on my Ubuntu instance, and installed it directly via apt-get.
> http://openjdk.java.net/install/
>
>
> > Looking at the timeline, JDK release a major new version roughly every 3
> > years. We dropped Java 6 support one year ago, so from a timeline point
> of
> > view we would be very aggressive here if we were to drop Java 7 support
> in
> > Spark 2.0.
>
> The metric is really (IMHO) when the JDK goes EOL. Java 6 was EOL in
> Feb 2013, so supporting it into Spark 1.x was probably too long. Java
> 7 was EOL in April 2015. It's not really somehow every ~3 years.
>
>
> > Note that not dropping Java 7 support now doesn't mean we have to support
> > Java 7 throughout Spark 2.x. We dropped Java 6 support in Spark 1.5, even
> > though Spark 1.0 started with Java 6.
>
> Whatever arguments one has about preventing people from updating to
> the latest and greatest then apply to a *minor* release, which is
> worse. Java 6 support was probably overdue for removal at 1.0;
> better-late-than-never, not necessarily the right time to do it.
>
>
> > In terms of testing, Josh has actually improved our test infra so now we
> > would run the Java 8 tests: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12073
>
> Excellent, but, orthogonal.
>
> Even if I personally don't see the merit in these arguments compared
> to the counter-arguments, retaining Java 7 support now wouldn't be a
> terrible outcome. I'd like to see better process and a more reasonable
> compromise result though.
>

Mime
View raw message