You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Christopher <ct...@apache.org> on 2014/06/20 23:19:01 UTC
[DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like ACCUMULO-2808 /
ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not expected or
intended.
Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the other
Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still JRE6
compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7 fixed the
issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd say no
problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I don't think
that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime rather than
compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate confirmation).
So, our choices seem to be:
1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1 and target
JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
(It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April 2015; the
announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8 already,
if possible)
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Posthumous agree on the all summarized points.
On Jun 20, 2014 3:08 PM, "Christopher" <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Okay, thanks for the responses. It's pretty clear that bumping to JRE 7 as
> a minimum is unacceptable for 1.6.x, and that's understandable.
>
> At this point, I think it would be best to back off to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x,
> and created a ticket (ACCUMULO-2934) to do that.
>
> Feel free to continue the discussion if there's any new thoughts. I'll not
> be able to work on ACCUMULO-2934 over the weekend anyway, and I'll check
> back here before I do.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for option 2, -1 for option 1 ... in other words, keep Accumulo 1.6.x
> at
> > Java 6. As a cluster admin I'd be unpleasantly surprised to find that I
> > need to update Java versions for a minor/bugfix (whatever we call it)
> > release.
> >
> > I am happy with the idea of moving to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x as part of
> > ACCUMULO-2786. Originally the ticket didn't call for upgrading Jetty, but
> > just getting its libraries included in packaging, but at this point, it's
> > sensible and more responsible to upgrade too.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > More data points to consider:
> > >
> > > mortbay Jetty has known security vulnerabilities (albeit relatively low
> > > ones)
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-9694/product_id-17330/Mortbay-Jetty.html
> > >
> > > Jetty 6 was announced as deprecated in January 2012 (for some
> performance
> > > and security issues)
> > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jetty-announce/msg00026.html
> > >
> > > Another option is to bump down to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x, which might be a
> > > smaller change that would keep us on JRE 6, and still satisfy
> > > ACCUMULO-2786.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > strong -1 on option 1; 1.6.0 went out with Java 6 as a minimum and we
> > > > should not change that in the major release.
> > > >
> > > > +1 on option 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for option 2.
> > > > >
> > > > > We promised users that they can use Java 6 for 1.6.0 and it would
> be
> > > very
> > > > > jarring to suddenly require 1.7.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > April 2015 is a long time away, and I'm not sure that the world
> will
> > > > > migrate quickly, given how long it took for Java 7 adoption.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like
> > ACCUMULO-2808
> > > /
> > > > > > ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not
> expected
> > > or
> > > > > > intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the
> other
> > > > > > Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still
> > JRE6
> > > > > > compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7
> > fixed
> > > > the
> > > > > > issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd
> say
> > > no
> > > > > > problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I
> don't
> > > > think
> > > > > > that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime
> > rather
> > > > than
> > > > > > compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate
> > > > > confirmation).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, our choices seem to be:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1
> and
> > > > > target
> > > > > > JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
> > > > > > 2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
> > > > > > ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April
> > 2015;
> > > > the
> > > > > > announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8
> > > > > already,
> > > > > > if possible)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sean
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Okay, thanks for the responses. It's pretty clear that bumping to JRE 7 as
a minimum is unacceptable for 1.6.x, and that's understandable.
At this point, I think it would be best to back off to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x,
and created a ticket (ACCUMULO-2934) to do that.
Feel free to continue the discussion if there's any new thoughts. I'll not
be able to work on ACCUMULO-2934 over the weekend anyway, and I'll check
back here before I do.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>
wrote:
> +1 for option 2, -1 for option 1 ... in other words, keep Accumulo 1.6.x at
> Java 6. As a cluster admin I'd be unpleasantly surprised to find that I
> need to update Java versions for a minor/bugfix (whatever we call it)
> release.
>
> I am happy with the idea of moving to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x as part of
> ACCUMULO-2786. Originally the ticket didn't call for upgrading Jetty, but
> just getting its libraries included in packaging, but at this point, it's
> sensible and more responsible to upgrade too.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > More data points to consider:
> >
> > mortbay Jetty has known security vulnerabilities (albeit relatively low
> > ones)
> >
> >
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-9694/product_id-17330/Mortbay-Jetty.html
> >
> > Jetty 6 was announced as deprecated in January 2012 (for some performance
> > and security issues)
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jetty-announce/msg00026.html
> >
> > Another option is to bump down to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x, which might be a
> > smaller change that would keep us on JRE 6, and still satisfy
> > ACCUMULO-2786.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > strong -1 on option 1; 1.6.0 went out with Java 6 as a minimum and we
> > > should not change that in the major release.
> > >
> > > +1 on option 2.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for option 2.
> > > >
> > > > We promised users that they can use Java 6 for 1.6.0 and it would be
> > very
> > > > jarring to suddenly require 1.7.0.
> > > >
> > > > April 2015 is a long time away, and I'm not sure that the world will
> > > > migrate quickly, given how long it took for Java 7 adoption.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like
> ACCUMULO-2808
> > /
> > > > > ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not expected
> > or
> > > > > intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the other
> > > > > Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still
> JRE6
> > > > > compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7
> fixed
> > > the
> > > > > issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd say
> > no
> > > > > problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I don't
> > > think
> > > > > that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime
> rather
> > > than
> > > > > compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate
> > > > confirmation).
> > > > >
> > > > > So, our choices seem to be:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1 and
> > > > target
> > > > > JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
> > > > > 2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
> > > > > ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > (It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April
> 2015;
> > > the
> > > > > announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8
> > > > already,
> > > > > if possible)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
+1 for option 2, -1 for option 1 ... in other words, keep Accumulo 1.6.x at
Java 6. As a cluster admin I'd be unpleasantly surprised to find that I
need to update Java versions for a minor/bugfix (whatever we call it)
release.
I am happy with the idea of moving to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x as part of
ACCUMULO-2786. Originally the ticket didn't call for upgrading Jetty, but
just getting its libraries included in packaging, but at this point, it's
sensible and more responsible to upgrade too.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> More data points to consider:
>
> mortbay Jetty has known security vulnerabilities (albeit relatively low
> ones)
>
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-9694/product_id-17330/Mortbay-Jetty.html
>
> Jetty 6 was announced as deprecated in January 2012 (for some performance
> and security issues)
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jetty-announce/msg00026.html
>
> Another option is to bump down to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x, which might be a
> smaller change that would keep us on JRE 6, and still satisfy
> ACCUMULO-2786.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > strong -1 on option 1; 1.6.0 went out with Java 6 as a minimum and we
> > should not change that in the major release.
> >
> > +1 on option 2.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for option 2.
> > >
> > > We promised users that they can use Java 6 for 1.6.0 and it would be
> very
> > > jarring to suddenly require 1.7.0.
> > >
> > > April 2015 is a long time away, and I'm not sure that the world will
> > > migrate quickly, given how long it took for Java 7 adoption.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like ACCUMULO-2808
> /
> > > > ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not expected
> or
> > > > intended.
> > > >
> > > > Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the other
> > > > Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still JRE6
> > > > compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7 fixed
> > the
> > > > issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd say
> no
> > > > problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I don't
> > think
> > > > that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime rather
> > than
> > > > compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate
> > > confirmation).
> > > >
> > > > So, our choices seem to be:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1 and
> > > target
> > > > JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
> > > > 2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
> > > > ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
> > > >
> > > > (It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April 2015;
> > the
> > > > announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8
> > > already,
> > > > if possible)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
More data points to consider:
mortbay Jetty has known security vulnerabilities (albeit relatively low
ones)
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-9694/product_id-17330/Mortbay-Jetty.html
Jetty 6 was announced as deprecated in January 2012 (for some performance
and security issues)
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jetty-announce/msg00026.html
Another option is to bump down to Jetty 8 for 1.6.x, which might be a
smaller change that would keep us on JRE 6, and still satisfy ACCUMULO-2786.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> strong -1 on option 1; 1.6.0 went out with Java 6 as a minimum and we
> should not change that in the major release.
>
> +1 on option 2.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for option 2.
> >
> > We promised users that they can use Java 6 for 1.6.0 and it would be very
> > jarring to suddenly require 1.7.0.
> >
> > April 2015 is a long time away, and I'm not sure that the world will
> > migrate quickly, given how long it took for Java 7 adoption.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like ACCUMULO-2808 /
> > > ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not expected or
> > > intended.
> > >
> > > Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the other
> > > Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still JRE6
> > > compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7 fixed
> the
> > > issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd say no
> > > problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I don't
> think
> > > that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime rather
> than
> > > compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate
> > confirmation).
> > >
> > > So, our choices seem to be:
> > >
> > > 1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1 and
> > target
> > > JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
> > > 2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
> > > ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
> > >
> > > (It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April 2015;
> the
> > > announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8
> > already,
> > > if possible)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
strong -1 on option 1; 1.6.0 went out with Java 6 as a minimum and we
should not change that in the major release.
+1 on option 2.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for option 2.
>
> We promised users that they can use Java 6 for 1.6.0 and it would be very
> jarring to suddenly require 1.7.0.
>
> April 2015 is a long time away, and I'm not sure that the world will
> migrate quickly, given how long it took for Java 7 adoption.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like ACCUMULO-2808 /
> > ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
> >
> > Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not expected or
> > intended.
> >
> > Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the other
> > Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still JRE6
> > compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7 fixed the
> > issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd say no
> > problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I don't think
> > that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime rather than
> > compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate
> confirmation).
> >
> > So, our choices seem to be:
> >
> > 1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1 and
> target
> > JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
> > 2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
> > ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
> >
> > (It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April 2015; the
> > announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8
> already,
> > if possible)
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>
--
Sean
Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum JDK in 1.6.1
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
+1 for option 2.
We promised users that they can use Java 6 for 1.6.0 and it would be very
jarring to suddenly require 1.7.0.
April 2015 is a long time away, and I'm not sure that the world will
migrate quickly, given how long it took for Java 7 adoption.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> As pointed out by Dave on ACCUMULO-2808, it looks like ACCUMULO-2808 /
> ACCUMULO-2786 causes the monitor to require Java 7.
>
> Personally, I'm okay with this, but obviously this was not expected or
> intended.
>
> Since we're still targeting Java 6 in our Accumulo build, the other
> Accumulo services will still run in JRE6, and our code is still JRE6
> compatible (even if we build with JDK7). If building with JDK7 fixed the
> issue and produced a monitor service that ran fine in JRE6, I'd say no
> problem: we build with JDK7, while targeting JRE6. However, I don't think
> that will work. I think the monitor will just fail at runtime rather than
> compile time (if somebody has time to check, I'd appreciate confirmation).
>
> So, our choices seem to be:
>
> 1. Make note of this requirement in the release notes for 1.6.1 and target
> JRE7 in future 1.6 builds, or
> 2. Back out the changes for ACCUMULO-2808 from 1.6.1, and redo
> ACCUMULO-2786 with some other implementation.
>
> (It should be noted that Java 7 is expected to be EOL in April 2015; the
> announcement was already made, so people should be migrating to 8 already,
> if possible)
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>