You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@knox.apache.org by larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> on 2017/09/18 14:38:18 UTC
[DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
All -
We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in upgrading
to Java 8.
I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not sufficiently
concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer being
conservative. :)
In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place anyway.
This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which have
features that we would benefit from.
If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a flag.
thanks,
--larry
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
Yup, you are right. I will open a JIRA for it.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Philip Zampino <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe there was agreement on this matter, so +1
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when
>> compiled against Java 7.
>> We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main
>> pom.xml IMO.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sandeep
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
>>> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sandeep -
>>>>
>>>> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here
>>>> properly.
>>>> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>>>> Java 8 specifics.
>>>>
>>>> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>>>> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>>>> community members need to continue to support.
>>>>
>>>> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using
>>>> things just because we can.
>>>>
>>>> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>>>> won't catch them all.
>>>> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single
>>>> change if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>>>>
>>>> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality
>>>>> from JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Sandeep
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>>>>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in
>>>>>> 2015 in
>>>>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>>>>> upgrading
>>>>>> to Java 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>>>>>> longer being
>>>>>> conservative. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>>>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases
>>>>>> which have
>>>>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise
>>>>>> a flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
Yup, you are right. I will open a JIRA for it.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Philip Zampino <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe there was agreement on this matter, so +1
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when
>> compiled against Java 7.
>> We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main
>> pom.xml IMO.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sandeep
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
>>> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sandeep -
>>>>
>>>> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here
>>>> properly.
>>>> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>>>> Java 8 specifics.
>>>>
>>>> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>>>> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>>>> community members need to continue to support.
>>>>
>>>> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using
>>>> things just because we can.
>>>>
>>>> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>>>> won't catch them all.
>>>> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single
>>>> change if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>>>>
>>>> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality
>>>>> from JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Sandeep
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>>>>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in
>>>>>> 2015 in
>>>>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>>>>> upgrading
>>>>>> to Java 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>>>>>> longer being
>>>>>> conservative. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>>>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases
>>>>>> which have
>>>>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise
>>>>>> a flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Philip Zampino <pz...@gmail.com>.
I believe there was agreement on this matter, so +1
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when compiled
> against Java 7.
> We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main
> pom.xml IMO.
>
> Best,
> Sandeep
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
>> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sandeep -
>>>
>>> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
>>> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>>> Java 8 specifics.
>>>
>>> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>>> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>>> community members need to continue to support.
>>>
>>> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using
>>> things just because we can.
>>>
>>> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>>> won't catch them all.
>>> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single
>>> change if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>>>
>>> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> --larry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>>>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Sandeep
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>>>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All -
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in
>>>>> 2015 in
>>>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>>>> upgrading
>>>>> to Java 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>>>>> longer being
>>>>> conservative. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem
>>>>> have
>>>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases
>>>>> which have
>>>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise
>>>>> a flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Philip Zampino <pz...@gmail.com>.
I believe there was agreement on this matter, so +1
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when compiled
> against Java 7.
> We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main
> pom.xml IMO.
>
> Best,
> Sandeep
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
>> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sandeep -
>>>
>>> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
>>> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>>> Java 8 specifics.
>>>
>>> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>>> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>>> community members need to continue to support.
>>>
>>> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using
>>> things just because we can.
>>>
>>> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>>> won't catch them all.
>>> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single
>>> change if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>>>
>>> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> --larry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>>>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Sandeep
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>>>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All -
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in
>>>>> 2015 in
>>>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>>>> upgrading
>>>>> to Java 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>>>>> longer being
>>>>> conservative. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem
>>>>> have
>>>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases
>>>>> which have
>>>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise
>>>>> a flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when compiled
against Java 7.
We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main pom.xml
IMO.
Best,
Sandeep
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sandeep -
>>
>> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
>> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>> Java 8 specifics.
>>
>> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>> community members need to continue to support.
>>
>> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
>> just because we can.
>>
>> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>> won't catch them all.
>> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
>> if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>>
>> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> --larry
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Sandeep
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All -
>>>>
>>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>>>> in
>>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>>> upgrading
>>>> to Java 8.
>>>>
>>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>>> sufficiently
>>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>>>> longer being
>>>> conservative. :)
>>>>
>>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>>>> have
>>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>>>> flag.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Krishna Pandey <kr...@gmail.com>.
+1. We definitely need *Improved Security* which are part of newer releases
of Java. (https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/why_upgrade.xml)
Regards,
Krishna Pandey
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>
wrote:
> +1.
>
> Colm.
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1. Compliance with other Hadoop ecosystems is very important.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mohammad
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 18, 2017, 10:47:53 AM PDT, Sandeep More <
>> moresandeep@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
>> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Sandeep -
>> >
>> > This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here
>> properly.
>> > I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>> > Java 8 specifics.
>> >
>> > I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>> > This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>> > community members need to continue to support.
>> >
>> > I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using
>> things
>> > just because we can.
>> >
>> > It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>> > won't catch them all.
>> > But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single
>> change
>> > if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>> >
>> > That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > --larry
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>> >> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Sandeep
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>> >> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Phil
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> All -
>> >>>
>> >>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>> >>> in
>> >>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>> >>> upgrading
>> >>> to Java 8.
>> >>>
>> >>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>> >>> sufficiently
>> >>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>> longer
>> >>> being
>> >>> conservative. :)
>> >>>
>> >>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem
>> have
>> >>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>> >>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>> >>> anyway.
>> >>>
>> >>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>> >>> have
>> >>> features that we would benefit from.
>> >>>
>> >>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>> >>> flag.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> --larry
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Colm O hEigeartaigh
>
> Talend Community Coder
> http://coders.talend.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
+1.
Colm.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> +1. Compliance with other Hadoop ecosystems is very important.
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad
>
>
> On Monday, September 18, 2017, 10:47:53 AM PDT, Sandeep More <
> moresandeep@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sandeep -
> >
> > This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
> > I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
> > Java 8 specifics.
> >
> > I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
> > This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
> > community members need to continue to support.
> >
> > I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
> > just because we can.
> >
> > It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
> > won't catch them all.
> > But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
> > if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
> >
> > That's my thoughts on it anyway...
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > --larry
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
> >> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Sandeep
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
> >> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All -
> >>>
> >>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
> >>> in
> >>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
> >>> upgrading
> >>> to Java 8.
> >>>
> >>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
> >>> sufficiently
> >>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
> >>> being
> >>> conservative. :)
> >>>
> >>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
> >>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
> >>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
> >>> have
> >>> features that we would benefit from.
> >>>
> >>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
> >>> flag.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> --larry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
+1. Compliance with other Hadoop ecosystems is very important.
Regards,Mohammad
On Monday, September 18, 2017, 10:47:53 AM PDT, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
back-porting would be a pain I agree.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sandeep -
>
> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
> Java 8 specifics.
>
> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
> community members need to continue to support.
>
> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
> just because we can.
>
> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
> won't catch them all.
> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
> if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>
> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sandeep
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All -
>>>
>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>>> in
>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>> upgrading
>>> to Java 8.
>>>
>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>> sufficiently
>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
>>> being
>>> conservative. :)
>>>
>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>>> have
>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>>> flag.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> --larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
Looks like master branch requires Java 8, builds are failing when compiled
against Java 7.
We should make is more "official" by using Java version in the main pom.xml
IMO.
Best,
Sandeep
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
> back-porting would be a pain I agree.
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sandeep -
>>
>> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
>> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
>> Java 8 specifics.
>>
>> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
>> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
>> community members need to continue to support.
>>
>> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
>> just because we can.
>>
>> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
>> won't catch them all.
>> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
>> if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>>
>> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> --larry
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Sandeep
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All -
>>>>
>>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>>>> in
>>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>>> upgrading
>>>> to Java 8.
>>>>
>>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>>> sufficiently
>>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no
>>>> longer being
>>>> conservative. :)
>>>>
>>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>>>> have
>>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>>>> flag.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>.
+1. Compliance with other Hadoop ecosystems is very important.
Regards,Mohammad
On Monday, September 18, 2017, 10:47:53 AM PDT, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
back-porting would be a pain I agree.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sandeep -
>
> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
> Java 8 specifics.
>
> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
> community members need to continue to support.
>
> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
> just because we can.
>
> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
> won't catch them all.
> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
> if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>
> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sandeep
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All -
>>>
>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>>> in
>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>> upgrading
>>> to Java 8.
>>>
>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>> sufficiently
>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
>>> being
>>> conservative. :)
>>>
>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>>> have
>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>>> flag.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> --larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
back-porting would be a pain I agree.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sandeep -
>
> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
> Java 8 specifics.
>
> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
> community members need to continue to support.
>
> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
> just because we can.
>
> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
> won't catch them all.
> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
> if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>
> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sandeep
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All -
>>>
>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>>> in
>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>> upgrading
>>> to Java 8.
>>>
>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>> sufficiently
>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
>>> being
>>> conservative. :)
>>>
>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>>> have
>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>>> flag.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> --larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
That's a good point Larry ! I was thinking for the new features, but yes
back-porting would be a pain I agree.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sandeep -
>
> This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
> I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
> Java 8 specifics.
>
> I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
> This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
> community members need to continue to support.
>
> I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
> just because we can.
>
> It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
> won't catch them all.
> But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
> if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
>
> That's my thoughts on it anyway...
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
>> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sandeep
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <
>> pzampino@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All -
>>>
>>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015
>>> in
>>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>>> upgrading
>>> to Java 8.
>>>
>>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>>> sufficiently
>>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
>>> being
>>> conservative. :)
>>>
>>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>>> have
>>> features that we would benefit from.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>>> flag.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> --larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>.
Hi Sandeep -
This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
Java 8 specifics.
I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
community members need to continue to support.
I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
just because we can.
It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
won't catch them all.
But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
That's my thoughts on it anyway...
thanks,
--larry
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>
> Best,
> Sandeep
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <pzampino@hortonworks.com
> > wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> --
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> All -
>>
>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>> upgrading
>> to Java 8.
>>
>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>> sufficiently
>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
>> being
>> conservative. :)
>>
>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>> anyway.
>>
>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>> have
>> features that we would benefit from.
>>
>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>> flag.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> --larry
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>.
Hi Sandeep -
This is a good point and I should try and set expectations here properly.
I think that it would be good practice to be careful about where we add
Java 8 specifics.
I would propose that we should limit this use to new features.
This will help minimize the pain in backports to previous releases that
community members need to continue to support.
I would not like to see changes across the codebase to start using things
just because we can.
It will take some thought sometimes to limit it to new features and we
won't catch them all.
But the flip side of that is we won't break everyone with a single change
if we don't do it against many files at once that don't need it.
That's my thoughts on it anyway...
thanks,
--larry
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
> JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
>
> Best,
> Sandeep
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <pzampino@hortonworks.com
> > wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> --
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> All -
>>
>> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
>> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
>> upgrading
>> to Java 8.
>>
>> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
>> sufficiently
>> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
>> being
>> conservative. :)
>>
>> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
>> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
>> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
>> anyway.
>>
>> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
>> have
>> features that we would benefit from.
>>
>> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
>> flag.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> --larry
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
+1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
Best,
Sandeep
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <pz...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> Phil
>
>
> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> All -
>
> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
> upgrading
> to Java 8.
>
> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
> sufficiently
> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
> being
> conservative. :)
>
> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
> anyway.
>
> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
> have
> features that we would benefit from.
>
> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
> flag.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Sandeep More <mo...@gmail.com>.
+1 as well. Also, we should be able to leverage some functionality from
JDK8 without the fear of breaking builds.
Best,
Sandeep
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Philip Zampino <pz...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> Phil
>
>
> On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> All -
>
> We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
> order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in
> upgrading
> to Java 8.
>
> I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not
> sufficiently
> concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer
> being
> conservative. :)
>
> In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
> already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
> components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place
> anyway.
>
> This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which
> have
> features that we would benefit from.
>
> If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a
> flag.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Philip Zampino <pz...@hortonworks.com>.
+1
--
Phil
On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
All -
We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in upgrading
to Java 8.
I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not sufficiently
concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer being
conservative. :)
In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place anyway.
This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which have
features that we would benefit from.
If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a flag.
thanks,
--larry
Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Java 7 in Apache Knox 0.14.0/1.0.0
Posted by Philip Zampino <pz...@hortonworks.com>.
+1
--
Phil
On 9/18/17, 10:38 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
All -
We have been supporting Java 7 long past it's EOL which was in 2015 in
order to be compatible with deployments that are conservative in upgrading
to Java 8.
I feel that at this point anyone that has not upgraded is not sufficiently
concerned about the security implications and that this is no longer being
conservative. :)
In addition, a number of components within the hadoop ecosystem have
already dropped Java 7 support. The popularity of these particular
components more or less means that Java 8 will likely be in place anyway.
This will also enable us to upgrade to the pac4j 2.x releases which have
features that we would benefit from.
If anyone has any concerns about this - please feel free to raise a flag.
thanks,
--larry