You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com> on 2017/12/07 23:48:38 UTC
[POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
in
which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
Java to Java8-only.
Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
of Beam.
The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the thread
above.
The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
- It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already vanishingly
small.
- Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
- A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only after a
large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many months.
Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs, including
the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java 8's end of
life (September 2018 AFAIK)
- Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production Beam
code.
Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
FYI the Twitter poll is over, with currently 5% "can't switch" which I
think is in the range of acceptable (particularly because AFAIK twitter
rounds the last poll option up, and others down, to get an exact 100%, so
in reality it's <5%).
I've also looked at some internal Dataflow statistics about usage of Java
versions among jobs using Beam 2.2.0+, and it is overwhelmingly in favor of
Java 8 (Java7 seems to be ~0.1% right now). Beam below 2.2.0 doesn't report
Java version, so the fraction of Java7 users among earlier versions of Beam
on Dataflow may be higher, but probably not 50x higher.
We have 2 more weeks for people to potentially chime in on this thread, and
then, barring strong objections, we can switch!
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> FYI: I took a 5-minute shot at this and quickly discovered that IntelliJ
> does not support setting different language level for tests vs. main code
> of a module, which will be painful to deal with in the IDE (setting module
> level to 7 will make IntelliJ complain about tests; setting to 8 will make
> it miss usages of 8 in main code that are not yet allowed).
>
> I think this might be more trouble than worth - let's just wait for the
> rest of the vote [currently 233 votes, with 4% "can't switch"] and
> hopefully switch the entire project.
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>> thanks for the report.
>>
>> I would go to Java 8 language level, starting building tests.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 12/11/2017 06:00 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
>> > Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
>> thread:
>> > seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96% who
>> are
>> > either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily switch.
>> >
>> > Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking
>> at
>> > between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7
>> support :)
>> >
>> > Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming
>> in on
>> > this thread!
>> >
>> > So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can
>> be
>> > dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January
>> 7th; since
>> > people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3 more
>> rounds of
>> > the same poll?..), however:
>> > - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using
>> JDK8 (at
>> > Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
>> > <ma...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira
>> > <ma...@google.com> once requested as part of building
>> Java 9
>> > support. I suspect that the sets "users who need to build their own
>> Beam SDK"
>> > and "users who can not upgrade to Java 8" have a vanishingly small
>> intersection.
>> > - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
>> level,
>> > which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging Java8-friendly
>> APIs.
>> > Thoughts on the above?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <kirpichov@google.com
>> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > A Twitter poll has been sent out too
>> > https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
>> > However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7
>> days. I
>> > encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread
>> instead.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <
>> kirpichov@google.com
>> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks,
>> however some
>> > people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>> > Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far
>> the
>> > agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if
>> fewer
>> > than 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <
>> kirpichov@google.com
>> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
>> in
>> > which the community consistently expressed support for
>> transitioning
>> > Beam Java to Java8-only.
>> >
>> > Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are
>> considering
>> > performing this change specifically in the immediate next
>> release:
>> > Beam 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump
>> in the
>> > major version of Beam.
>> >
>> > The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are
>> considered in the
>> > thread above.
>> > The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are
>> as follows:
>> > - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is
>> already
>> > vanishingly small.
>> > - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates
>> for
>> > years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>> > - A major version bump is a major step and would likely
>> happen only
>> > after a large number of other major changes in Beam
>> accumulate -
>> > i.e. many months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that
>> long
>> > would have costs, including the awkward possibility of
>> switching
>> > Beam to Java 8 after Java 8's end of life (September 2018
>> AFAIK)
>> > - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly
>> gaining more
>> > Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and
>> contributors would
>> > have more liberty, more responsibility and more experience
>> with
>> > working in the context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0
>> would delay
>> > this as well.
>> >
>> > With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to
>> gather
>> > information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production.
>> Please vote:
>> >
>> > Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my
>> production
>> > Beam code.
>> >
>> > Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam
>> code,
>> > but I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g.
>> my
>> > transition to Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect
>> that I'll
>> > have strong reasons to upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>> >
>> > Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam
>> code,
>> > and dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to
>> adopting the
>> > new release for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong
>> reasons to
>> > update to Beam 2.3, but I expect that it will be difficult
>> because
>> > of lack of Java 7 support]
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
FYI: I took a 5-minute shot at this and quickly discovered that IntelliJ
does not support setting different language level for tests vs. main code
of a module, which will be painful to deal with in the IDE (setting module
level to 7 will make IntelliJ complain about tests; setting to 8 will make
it miss usages of 8 in main code that are not yet allowed).
I think this might be more trouble than worth - let's just wait for the
rest of the vote [currently 233 votes, with 4% "can't switch"] and
hopefully switch the entire project.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi Eugene,
>
> thanks for the report.
>
> I would go to Java 8 language level, starting building tests.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 12/11/2017 06:00 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
> > Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
> thread:
> > seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96% who
> are
> > either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily switch.
> >
> > Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking
> at
> > between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support
> :)
> >
> > Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming
> in on
> > this thread!
> >
> > So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can
> be
> > dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
> since
> > people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3 more
> rounds of
> > the same poll?..), however:
> > - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using
> JDK8 (at
> > Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
> > <ma...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira
> > <ma...@google.com> once requested as part of building Java
> 9
> > support. I suspect that the sets "users who need to build their own Beam
> SDK"
> > and "users who can not upgrade to Java 8" have a vanishingly small
> intersection.
> > - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
> level,
> > which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging Java8-friendly
> APIs.
> > Thoughts on the above?
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <kirpichov@google.com
> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > A Twitter poll has been sent out too
> > https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
> > However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7
> days. I
> > encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread
> instead.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <
> kirpichov@google.com
> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks,
> however some
> > people have expressed concern that this is too short.
> > Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
> > agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if
> fewer
> > than 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <
> kirpichov@google.com
> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> in
> > which the community consistently expressed support for
> transitioning
> > Beam Java to Java8-only.
> >
> > Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are
> considering
> > performing this change specifically in the immediate next
> release:
> > Beam 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump
> in the
> > major version of Beam.
> >
> > The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are
> considered in the
> > thread above.
> > The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are
> as follows:
> > - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is
> already
> > vanishingly small.
> > - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates
> for
> > years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
> > - A major version bump is a major step and would likely
> happen only
> > after a large number of other major changes in Beam
> accumulate -
> > i.e. many months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that
> long
> > would have costs, including the awkward possibility of
> switching
> > Beam to Java 8 after Java 8's end of life (September 2018
> AFAIK)
> > - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining
> more
> > Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and
> contributors would
> > have more liberty, more responsibility and more experience
> with
> > working in the context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0
> would delay
> > this as well.
> >
> > With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to
> gather
> > information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production.
> Please vote:
> >
> > Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my
> production
> > Beam code.
> >
> > Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam
> code,
> > but I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g.
> my
> > transition to Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect
> that I'll
> > have strong reasons to upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
> >
> > Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam
> code,
> > and dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to
> adopting the
> > new release for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong
> reasons to
> > update to Beam 2.3, but I expect that it will be difficult
> because
> > of lack of Java 7 support]
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Eugene,
thanks for the report.
I would go to Java 8 language level, starting building tests.
Regards
JB
On 12/11/2017 06:00 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this thread:
> seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96% who are
> either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily switch.
>
> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking at
> between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support :)
>
> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming in on
> this thread!
>
> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can be
> dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th; since
> people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3 more rounds of
> the same poll?..), however:
> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using JDK8 (at
> Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
> <ma...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira
> <ma...@google.com> once requested as part of building Java 9
> support. I suspect that the sets "users who need to build their own Beam SDK"
> and "users who can not upgrade to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language level,
> which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging Java8-friendly APIs.
> Thoughts on the above?
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <kirpichov@google.com
> <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>
> A Twitter poll has been sent out too
> https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
> encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <kirpichov@google.com
> <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>
> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
> people have expressed concern that this is too short.
> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer
> than 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <kirpichov@google.com
> <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>
> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning
> Beam Java to Java8-only.
>
> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release:
> Beam 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the
> major version of Beam.
>
> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
> thread above.
> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
> vanishingly small.
> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for
> years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate -
> i.e. many months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long
> would have costs, including the awkward possibility of switching
> Beam to Java 8 after Java 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would
> have more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with
> working in the context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay
> this as well.
>
> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>
> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
> Beam code.
>
> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code,
> but I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my
> transition to Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll
> have strong reasons to upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>
> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code,
> and dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the
> new release for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to
> update to Beam 2.3, but I expect that it will be difficult because
> of lack of Java 7 support]
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
Thanks for the heads-up. There's only 3 days remaining until the formal end
of this vote, and so far it seems conclusively in favor of dropping Java 7.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:35 PM Ben Sidhom <si...@google.com> wrote:
> Flink will be dropping Java 7 support in 1.5.0 (Java 8 is required for
> Scala 2.12+): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5005. This is
> another bump in favor of setting Java 8 as the project default. We'll
> eventually need to switch the Flink runner if we want it to stay up to date.
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding: I didn't mean to suggest to actually
>> use confidence intervals, I added that information just as a curiosity. I
>> agree that we should make the decision based on the explicit % of votes.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> -user list for this
>>>
>>> FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was
>>> launched, but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%.
>>>
>>> If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either
>>> need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a
>>> more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which
>>> is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is
>>> already effectively done if that is the standard.
>>>
>>> But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to
>>> make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had
>>> talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java
>>> 7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have
>>> said the balance was off.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
>>>> thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96%
>>>> who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily
>>>> switch.
>>>>
>>>> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking
>>>> at between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming
>>>> in on this thread!
>>>>
>>>> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can
>>>> be dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
>>>> since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3
>>>> more rounds of the same poll?..), however:
>>>> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using
>>>> JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël
>>>> Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira <da...@google.com> once
>>>> requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets
>>>> "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade
>>>> to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
>>>> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
>>>> level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging
>>>> Java8-friendly APIs.
>>>> Thoughts on the above?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A Twitter poll has been sent out too
>>>>> https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
>>>>> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days.
>>>>> I encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread
>>>>> instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however
>>>>>> some people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>>>>>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
>>>>>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
>>>>>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>>>>>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>>>>>>> Java to Java8-only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>>>>>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>>>>>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>>>>>>> of Beam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>>>>>>> thread above.
>>>>>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as
>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>>>>>>> vanishingly small.
>>>>>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for
>>>>>>> years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>>>>>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
>>>>>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>>>>>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>>>>>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>>>>>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>>>>>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>>>>>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>>>>>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>>>>>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>>>>>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
>>>>>>> Beam code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code,
>>>>>>> but I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition
>>>>>>> to Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons
>>>>>>> to upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code,
>>>>>>> and dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new
>>>>>>> release for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to
>>>>>>> Beam 2.3, but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7
>>>>>>> support]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> -Ben
>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Ben Sidhom <si...@google.com>.
Flink will be dropping Java 7 support in 1.5.0 (Java 8 is required for
Scala 2.12+): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5005. This is
another bump in favor of setting Java 8 as the project default. We'll
eventually need to switch the Flink runner if we want it to stay up to date.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding: I didn't mean to suggest to actually
> use confidence intervals, I added that information just as a curiosity. I
> agree that we should make the decision based on the explicit % of votes.
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> -user list for this
>>
>> FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was
>> launched, but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%.
>>
>> If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either
>> need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a
>> more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which
>> is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is
>> already effectively done if that is the standard.
>>
>> But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to
>> make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had
>> talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java
>> 7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have
>> said the balance was off.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
>>> thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96%
>>> who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily
>>> switch.
>>>
>>> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking
>>> at between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming
>>> in on this thread!
>>>
>>> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can
>>> be dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
>>> since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3
>>> more rounds of the same poll?..), however:
>>> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using
>>> JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
>>> <ie...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira <da...@google.com> once
>>> requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets
>>> "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade
>>> to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
>>> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
>>> level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging
>>> Java8-friendly APIs.
>>> Thoughts on the above?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A Twitter poll has been sent out too https://twitter.com/
>>>> ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
>>>> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days.
>>>> I encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread
>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however
>>>>> some people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>>>>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
>>>>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
>>>>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130
>>>>>> fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in which the
>>>>>> community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam Java to
>>>>>> Java8-only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>>>>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>>>>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>>>>>> of Beam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>>>>>> thread above.
>>>>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as
>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>>>>>> vanishingly small.
>>>>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for
>>>>>> years, helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>>>>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
>>>>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>>>>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>>>>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>>>>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>>>>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>>>>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>>>>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>>>>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>>>>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
>>>>>> Beam code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but
>>>>>> I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to
>>>>>> Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>>>>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>>>>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>>>>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>>>>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
--
-Ben
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding: I didn't mean to suggest to actually
use confidence intervals, I added that information just as a curiosity. I
agree that we should make the decision based on the explicit % of votes.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
> -user list for this
>
> FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was launched,
> but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%.
>
> If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either
> need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a
> more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which
> is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is
> already effectively done if that is the standard.
>
> But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to
> make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had
> talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java
> 7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have
> said the balance was off.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
>> thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96%
>> who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily
>> switch.
>>
>> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking
>> at between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support
>> :)
>>
>> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming in
>> on this thread!
>>
>> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can
>> be dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
>> since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3
>> more rounds of the same poll?..), however:
>> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using
>> JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
>> <ie...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira <da...@google.com> once
>> requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets
>> "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade
>> to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
>> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
>> level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging
>> Java8-friendly APIs.
>> Thoughts on the above?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A Twitter poll has been sent out too
>>> https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
>>> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
>>> encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however
>>>> some people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>>>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
>>>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
>>>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>>>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>>>>> Java to Java8-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>>>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>>>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>>>>> of Beam.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>>>>> thread above.
>>>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
>>>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>>>>> vanishingly small.
>>>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
>>>>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>>>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
>>>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>>>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>>>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>>>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>>>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>>>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>>>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>>>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>>>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
>>>>> Beam code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but
>>>>> I would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to
>>>>> Java 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>>>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>>>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>>>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>>>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>.
-user list for this
FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was launched,
but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%.
If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either
need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a
more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which
is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is
already effectively done if that is the standard.
But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to
make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had
talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java
7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have
said the balance was off.
Kenn
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
> thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96%
> who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily
> switch.
>
> Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking at
> between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support :)
>
> Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming in
> on this thread!
>
> So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can be
> dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
> since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3
> more rounds of the same poll?..), however:
> - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using
> JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
> <ie...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira <da...@google.com> once
> requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets
> "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade
> to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
> - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
> level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging
> Java8-friendly APIs.
> Thoughts on the above?
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A Twitter poll has been sent out too https://twitter.com/Apache
>> Beam/status/938926195910905857
>> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
>> encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
>>> people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
>>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
>>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f
>>>> 09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>>>> Java to Java8-only.
>>>>
>>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>>>> of Beam.
>>>>
>>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>>>> thread above.
>>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
>>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>>>> vanishingly small.
>>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
>>>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
>>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>>>
>>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
>>>> Beam code.
>>>>
>>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
>>>> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
>>>> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>>>
>>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96%
who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily
switch.
Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking at
between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support :)
Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming in
on this thread!
So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can be
dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3
more rounds of the same poll?..), however:
- It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using JDK8
(at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
<ie...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira <da...@google.com> once
requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets
"users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade
to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
- Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging
Java8-friendly APIs.
Thoughts on the above?
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> A Twitter poll has been sent out too
> https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
> encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
>> people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>>> Java to Java8-only.
>>>
>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>>> of Beam.
>>>
>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>>> thread above.
>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>>> vanishingly small.
>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
>>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>>
>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
>>> Beam code.
>>>
>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
>>> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
>>> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>>
>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>>
>>>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this
thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96%
who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily
switch.
Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking at
between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support :)
Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming in
on this thread!
So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can be
dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th;
since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3
more rounds of the same poll?..), however:
- It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using JDK8
(at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía
<ie...@gmail.com> and +Daniel Oliveira <da...@google.com> once
requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets
"users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade
to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection.
- Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language
level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging
Java8-friendly APIs.
Thoughts on the above?
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> A Twitter poll has been sent out too
> https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
> encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
>> people have expressed concern that this is too short.
>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>>> Java to Java8-only.
>>>
>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>>> of Beam.
>>>
>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>>> thread above.
>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>>> vanishingly small.
>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
>>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only
>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>>
>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production
>>> Beam code.
>>>
>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
>>> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
>>> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>>
>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>>
>>>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
A Twitter poll has been sent out too
https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
> people have expressed concern that this is too short.
> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>> Java to Java8-only.
>>
>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>> of Beam.
>>
>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>> thread above.
>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>> vanishingly small.
>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only after
>> a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>
>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>
>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production Beam
>> code.
>>
>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
>> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
>> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>
>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>
>>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
A Twitter poll has been sent out too
https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/938926195910905857
However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I
encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
> people have expressed concern that this is too short.
> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
> 5% of all respondents choose option 3.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
>> Java to Java8-only.
>>
>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
>> of Beam.
>>
>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
>> thread above.
>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already
>> vanishingly small.
>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only after
>> a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>>
>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>>
>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production Beam
>> code.
>>
>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
>> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
>> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>>
>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>>
>>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
people have expressed concern that this is too short.
Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
5% of all respondents choose option 3.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
> Java to Java8-only.
>
> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
> of Beam.
>
> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
> thread above.
> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already vanishingly
> small.
> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only after
> a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>
> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>
> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production Beam
> code.
>
> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>
> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>
>
Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3
Posted by Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>.
Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some
people have expressed concern that this is too short.
Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the
agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than
5% of all respondents choose option 3.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <ki...@google.com>
wrote:
> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in
> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam
> Java to Java8-only.
>
> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering
> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam
> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version
> of Beam.
>
> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the
> thread above.
> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows:
> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already vanishingly
> small.
> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years,
> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea
> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only after
> a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many
> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs,
> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java
> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK)
> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more
> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have
> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the
> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well.
>
> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather
> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote:
>
> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production Beam
> code.
>
> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I
> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java
> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to
> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway].
>
> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and
> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release
> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3,
> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support]
>
>