You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@helix.apache.org by Junkai Xue <jx...@apache.org> on 2023/01/21 03:05:16 UTC
Re: Helix - JDK8 to JDK11
Once PR created, it will automatically trigger it.
Best,
Junkai
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:09 AM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If no one has further concern about it, let's go for it. This would be the
> last call.
> I would suggest having a release to wrap up all the fixes and changes in
> current 1.0.x and then let's make the major change for JDK 11 as
> lightweight as possible.
>
> Best,
>
> Junkai
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there any conclusion on if we can proceed with the JAVA version
>> bump-up to JDK11 ?
>>
>> thanks,
>> komal
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:16 PM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks Komal for proposing this and thanks Will for the suggestion! My
>> two cents here: JDK17 has more backward incompatibilities, which may
>> require major version change from 1.0 -> 2.0. Also a Java11 support in the
>> middle could be good for all Helix users, which gives more options.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Junkai
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:08 PM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I believe in taking a small step first. If we have smooth sailing with
>> >> JDK11, then next step JDK17.
>> >>
>> >> thanks Will.
>> >> komal
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:58 PM William Morgan <wi...@morgan-fam.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If there were a move for Java versions, why not move to 17 (the
>> latest LTS)? I don’t believe there were many breaking changes between those
>> 11 and 17 and nothing even as close as the pain of jumping from 8 to 11.
>> The only limiting factor I’m guessing would be the zookeeper libs, though a
>> cursory search doesn’t show any issues with Java 17. Overall I would be for
>> getting off Java 8 and would be even happier if we ended up on 17, though
>> 11 would be fine.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Will
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:52 PM, Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Hello Helix user and developer community,
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Helix has been using JDK-8 as default for the last few years.
>> >> > >> Newer JDK versions have improved performance and improved
>> functionalities.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I wanted to propose that we move Apache Helix project from using
>> JDK-8 to JDK-11 to leverage better performance.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Please let me know how you would like me to proceed.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> thanks,
>> >> > >> Komal Desai (desaikomal)
>> >> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Junkai Xue
>>
>
>
> --
> Junkai Xue
>
Re: Helix - JDK8 to JDK11
Posted by Junkai Xue <jx...@apache.org>.
Ah... One approach is to setup the 11 configuration in your forked repo CI.
If it verifies, then check the code change first.
After code change checked in, then we change the setup for CI in the Apache
branch.
best,
Junkai
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:50 PM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Junkai,
> Looks like PR CI workflow explicitly sets it to JDK 8
> [image: Screen Shot 2023-01-20 at 7.42.53 PM.png]
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 7:05 PM Junkai Xue <jx...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Once PR created, it will automatically trigger it.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Junkai
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:09 AM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If no one has further concern about it, let's go for it. This would be
>>> the last call.
>>> I would suggest having a release to wrap up all the fixes and changes in
>>> current 1.0.x and then let's make the major change for JDK 11 as
>>> lightweight as possible.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Junkai
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Is there any conclusion on if we can proceed with the JAVA version
>>>> bump-up to JDK11 ?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> komal
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:16 PM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks Komal for proposing this and thanks Will for the suggestion!
>>>> My two cents here: JDK17 has more backward incompatibilities, which may
>>>> require major version change from 1.0 -> 2.0. Also a Java11 support in the
>>>> middle could be good for all Helix users, which gives more options.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Junkai
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:08 PM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I believe in taking a small step first. If we have smooth sailing
>>>> with
>>>> >> JDK11, then next step JDK17.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> thanks Will.
>>>> >> komal
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:58 PM William Morgan <
>>>> william@morgan-fam.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > If there were a move for Java versions, why not move to 17 (the
>>>> latest LTS)? I don’t believe there were many breaking changes between those
>>>> 11 and 17 and nothing even as close as the pain of jumping from 8 to 11.
>>>> The only limiting factor I’m guessing would be the zookeeper libs, though a
>>>> cursory search doesn’t show any issues with Java 17. Overall I would be for
>>>> getting off Java 8 and would be even happier if we ended up on 17, though
>>>> 11 would be fine.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Thanks,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Will
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:52 PM, Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> Hello Helix user and developer community,
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> Helix has been using JDK-8 as default for the last few years.
>>>> >> > >> Newer JDK versions have improved performance and improved
>>>> functionalities.
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> I wanted to propose that we move Apache Helix project from
>>>> using JDK-8 to JDK-11 to leverage better performance.
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> Please let me know how you would like me to proceed.
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> thanks,
>>>> >> > >> Komal Desai (desaikomal)
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Junkai Xue
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Junkai Xue
>>>
>>
Re: Helix - JDK8 to JDK11
Posted by Junkai Xue <jx...@apache.org>.
Ah... One approach is to setup the 11 configuration in your forked repo CI.
If it verifies, then check the code change first.
After code change checked in, then we change the setup for CI in the Apache
branch.
best,
Junkai
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:50 PM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Junkai,
> Looks like PR CI workflow explicitly sets it to JDK 8
> [image: Screen Shot 2023-01-20 at 7.42.53 PM.png]
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 7:05 PM Junkai Xue <jx...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Once PR created, it will automatically trigger it.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Junkai
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:09 AM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If no one has further concern about it, let's go for it. This would be
>>> the last call.
>>> I would suggest having a release to wrap up all the fixes and changes in
>>> current 1.0.x and then let's make the major change for JDK 11 as
>>> lightweight as possible.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Junkai
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Is there any conclusion on if we can proceed with the JAVA version
>>>> bump-up to JDK11 ?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> komal
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:16 PM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks Komal for proposing this and thanks Will for the suggestion!
>>>> My two cents here: JDK17 has more backward incompatibilities, which may
>>>> require major version change from 1.0 -> 2.0. Also a Java11 support in the
>>>> middle could be good for all Helix users, which gives more options.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Junkai
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:08 PM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I believe in taking a small step first. If we have smooth sailing
>>>> with
>>>> >> JDK11, then next step JDK17.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> thanks Will.
>>>> >> komal
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:58 PM William Morgan <
>>>> william@morgan-fam.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > If there were a move for Java versions, why not move to 17 (the
>>>> latest LTS)? I don’t believe there were many breaking changes between those
>>>> 11 and 17 and nothing even as close as the pain of jumping from 8 to 11.
>>>> The only limiting factor I’m guessing would be the zookeeper libs, though a
>>>> cursory search doesn’t show any issues with Java 17. Overall I would be for
>>>> getting off Java 8 and would be even happier if we ended up on 17, though
>>>> 11 would be fine.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Thanks,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Will
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:52 PM, Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> Hello Helix user and developer community,
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> Helix has been using JDK-8 as default for the last few years.
>>>> >> > >> Newer JDK versions have improved performance and improved
>>>> functionalities.
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> I wanted to propose that we move Apache Helix project from
>>>> using JDK-8 to JDK-11 to leverage better performance.
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> Please let me know how you would like me to proceed.
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> thanks,
>>>> >> > >> Komal Desai (desaikomal)
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Junkai Xue
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Junkai Xue
>>>
>>
Re: Helix - JDK8 to JDK11
Posted by Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com>.
Junkai,
Looks like PR CI workflow explicitly sets it to JDK 8
[image: Screen Shot 2023-01-20 at 7.42.53 PM.png]
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 7:05 PM Junkai Xue <jx...@apache.org> wrote:
> Once PR created, it will automatically trigger it.
>
> Best,
>
> Junkai
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:09 AM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If no one has further concern about it, let's go for it. This would be
>> the last call.
>> I would suggest having a release to wrap up all the fixes and changes in
>> current 1.0.x and then let's make the major change for JDK 11 as
>> lightweight as possible.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Junkai
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Is there any conclusion on if we can proceed with the JAVA version
>>> bump-up to JDK11 ?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> komal
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:16 PM Junkai Xue <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Komal for proposing this and thanks Will for the suggestion! My
>>> two cents here: JDK17 has more backward incompatibilities, which may
>>> require major version change from 1.0 -> 2.0. Also a Java11 support in the
>>> middle could be good for all Helix users, which gives more options.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > Junkai
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:08 PM Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe in taking a small step first. If we have smooth sailing with
>>> >> JDK11, then next step JDK17.
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks Will.
>>> >> komal
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:58 PM William Morgan <
>>> william@morgan-fam.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If there were a move for Java versions, why not move to 17 (the
>>> latest LTS)? I don’t believe there were many breaking changes between those
>>> 11 and 17 and nothing even as close as the pain of jumping from 8 to 11.
>>> The only limiting factor I’m guessing would be the zookeeper libs, though a
>>> cursory search doesn’t show any issues with Java 17. Overall I would be for
>>> getting off Java 8 and would be even happier if we ended up on 17, though
>>> 11 would be fine.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Will
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:52 PM, Komal Desai <ko...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Hello Helix user and developer community,
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Helix has been using JDK-8 as default for the last few years.
>>> >> > >> Newer JDK versions have improved performance and improved
>>> functionalities.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> I wanted to propose that we move Apache Helix project from using
>>> JDK-8 to JDK-11 to leverage better performance.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Please let me know how you would like me to proceed.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> thanks,
>>> >> > >> Komal Desai (desaikomal)
>>> >> > >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Junkai Xue
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Junkai Xue
>>
>