OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk


I suppose given the short lifetime of each Java release you could argue
we're always close to EOL.  I feel like we shouldn't ship with a version
that is currently EOL.

Coming up with a policy for all upcoming releases may also be incredibly
difficult.  6 months java releases could pan out like Tick Tock and reveal
itself to be a fun idea with some really bad consequences, and it goes away
after Java 12.  Impossible to tell.  How about we figure out the next
release and get a little experience under our belts with their new release
schedule before we try to make long term decisions?

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM Josh McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > At this point I feel like we should already be
> > targeting Java 10 at a minimum.
> Barring some surprises from other people supporting 10 longer-term,
> wouldn't that be coupling C*'s 4.0 release with a runtime that's
> likely EOL shortly after?
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Jonathan Haddad <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Java 8 was marked as EOL in the middle of last year, I hope we wouldn't
> > require it for Cassandra 4.  At this point I feel like we should already
> be
> > targeting Java 10 at a minimum.
> >
> > Personally I'd prefer not to tie our releases to any vendor / product /
> > package's release schedule.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:49 AM Jason Brown <jasedbrown@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm coming to be on-board with #3.
> >>
> >> One thing to watch out for (we can't account for it now) is how our
> >> dependencies choose to move forward. If we need to upgrade a jar (netty,
> >> for example) due to some leak or vulnerability, and it only runs on a
> >> higher version, we may be forced to upgrade the base java version.
> Like, I
> >> said we can't possibly foresee these things, and we'll just have to
> make a
> >> hard decision if the situation arises, but just something to keep in
> mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > 3) Release 4.0 for Java 8, *optionally* branch 4.1 for Java 11 later
> >> >
> >> > This seems like the best of our bad options, with the addition of
> >> > "optionally".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:54:23 +0000, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >I think Michael is right. It would be impossible to make everyone
> >> follow
> >> > > >such a fast release scheme, and supporting it will be pressured
> onto
> >> the
> >> > > >various distributions, M$ and Apple.
> >> > > >On the other hand https://adoptopenjdk.net has already done a lot
> of
> >> > the
> >> > > >work and it's already rumoured they may take up backporting of
> >> > > security/bug
> >> > > >fixes. I'd fully expect a lot of users to collaborate around this
> (or
> >> > > >similar), and there's no reason we couldn't do our part to
> contribute.
> >> > >
> >> > > A posting on Reddit yesterday from someone from adoptopenjdk claimes
> >> > > that they will be doing LTS releases starting with Java 11, and
> there
> >> > > should be updates to their website to reflect that soon:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/86ce66/java_long_term_support/
> >> > >
> >> > > So I guess a wait and see to what they commit could be worthwhile.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>