Re: [Discuss] Moving Samza to Java 1.8 source compatibility.

[Yi Pan <ni...@gmail.com>]

Hi, guys,

I have not seen any objection since May on this one. I am concluding it as
everyone is cool w/ moving to JDK8 in 0.12.

@Jake, can you send out a [RESULT][DISCUSS] email to close this one?

Thanks!

-Yi

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Monal <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here at Netflix, we have been running Samza on 1.8 since last year and have
> been in production with it. So move to 1.8 is a welcome. No concerns there
> for us.
>
> Thanks
> Monal
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Jacob Maes <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks everyone. Sounds like a few want to move forward with Java 1.8
> > source compatibility. I still think it would be useful to hear from a
> Java
> > 1.7 shop.
> >
> > Hey Maurice, as I recall you were running Samza on Java 1.7. Is that
> still
> > the case? Do you have a roadmap to move to 1.8? Do you typically keep
> your
> > Samza instance(s) synced with master?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jake
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Navina Ramesh <
> > nramesh@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for moving to JDK8.
> > >
> > > We have traditionally been pretty slow at releasing. I think we need to
> > > start thinking in terms of long-term release plans and iterate faster.
> > >
> > > Prior to Samza 1.0, I think we will at least have 2 releases:
> > > 0.10.1 -> featuring mostly bug-fixes and improvements to host-affinity
> > > 0.11.0 -> incorporating experimental features - asynRunLoop
> > (multithreading
> > > and Standalone Samza
> > > 1.0.0 -> stabilized features - AsyncRunLoop and Standalone +
> experimental
> > > SQL operator layer
> > >
> > > The above release plan is simply what I had in mind. Nothing is
> concrete!
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Obviously, we shouldn't remove jdk7 support in 0.10.1. Perhaps, 0.11.0.
> > > will be a good starting point? Or should we wait until we are at 1.0.
> > >
> > > I think the users in the community need to provide feedback so we can
> > make
> > > progress accordingly.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Navina
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Roger Hoover <roger.hoover@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for me.  We're already using Java 8 in PRD.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Yi Pan <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am +1 on the JDK8 move. As Jake has elaborated, there are
> numerous
> > > > > advantages from 1.8 source compatible code.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the downside of dropping JDK7 support, obviously, bin
> > > > > backward-compatibility will be broken. However, moving to JDK8
> binary
> > > is
> > > > > not a big effort for JDK7-compatible Java and Scala source code, in
> > > term
> > > > of
> > > > > compiling and packaging. There is no need for source code change
> and
> > we
> > > > > have been building JDK8 binary in LinkedIn and running in
> production
> > w/
> > > > > JDK8 for a long time w/o seeing any issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > For users cannot upgrade their runtime JVM version to JDK8 easily,
> > the
> > > > > latest coming release will still be on JDK7. Question is: how long
> > > should
> > > > > we hold back in waiting for this upgrade?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > -Yi
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Jacob Maes <ja...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wanted to start a discussion to see what folks think about
> moving
> > > to
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > 1.8 source compatibility at some point after the 10.1 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Java 8 has a number of nice features that can help us build more
> > > > concise,
> > > > > > maintainable, and robust software. A few notable features that
> > would
> > > > > > benefit Samza:
> > > > > > 1. Stream API - provide a compact syntax for expressing
> > > transformations
> > > > > on
> > > > > > collections. These may be foundational for future API work
> > including
> > > > > > Operators (SAMZA-914)
> > > > > > 2. Default Methods - enable us to evolve interfaces without
> > breaking
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > 3. Concurrent package enhancements - generally make concurrent
> > > > > programming
> > > > > > easier, which will be more important with features like
> > > multithreading
> > > > > > support (SAMZA-863)
> > > > > > 4. Lambdas - love them or hate them, they do reduce the amount of
> > > > > > boilerplate code, especially when used in place of anonymous
> > classes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It certainly would be nice to leverage some of the features
> above.
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > we have historically supported Java versions N and N-1 and it
> > doesn't
> > > > > look
> > > > > > like Java 9 is coming until next year. So, discontinuing support
> > for
> > > > Java
> > > > > > 1.7 at this point would be a departure from our normal support
> > matrix
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > significant period of time. Thoughts on the pros and cons?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know some folks in this community are still on Java 1.7. How
> many
> > > of
> > > > > you
> > > > > > stay up to date with the latest Samza? Do you have a roadmap to
> > move
> > > to
> > > > > > Java 1.8?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Jake
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Navina R.
> > >
> >
>

[RESULT][DISCUSS] Moving Samza to Java 1.8 source compatibility.

[Jacob Maes <ja...@gmail.com>]

I agree. This discussion was open for quite a while and we've seen no
opposition. It's time to make the move.

+1 (binding) x2
+1 (non-binding) x3

I've filed SAMZA-1031 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-1031> to
track the work for Samza 0.12. It should be relatively minor.

-Jake

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Yi Pan <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, guys,
>
> I have not seen any objection since May on this one. I am concluding it as
> everyone is cool w/ moving to JDK8 in 0.12.
>
> @Jake, can you send out a [RESULT][DISCUSS] email to close this one?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Yi
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Monal <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here at Netflix, we have been running Samza on 1.8 since last year and
> have
> > been in production with it. So move to 1.8 is a welcome. No concerns
> there
> > for us.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Monal
> >
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Jacob Maes <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks everyone. Sounds like a few want to move forward with Java 1.8
> > > source compatibility. I still think it would be useful to hear from a
> > Java
> > > 1.7 shop.
> > >
> > > Hey Maurice, as I recall you were running Samza on Java 1.7. Is that
> > still
> > > the case? Do you have a roadmap to move to 1.8? Do you typically keep
> > your
> > > Samza instance(s) synced with master?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jake
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Navina Ramesh <
> > > nramesh@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for moving to JDK8.
> > > >
> > > > We have traditionally been pretty slow at releasing. I think we need
> to
> > > > start thinking in terms of long-term release plans and iterate
> faster.
> > > >
> > > > Prior to Samza 1.0, I think we will at least have 2 releases:
> > > > 0.10.1 -> featuring mostly bug-fixes and improvements to
> host-affinity
> > > > 0.11.0 -> incorporating experimental features - asynRunLoop
> > > (multithreading
> > > > and Standalone Samza
> > > > 1.0.0 -> stabilized features - AsyncRunLoop and Standalone +
> > experimental
> > > > SQL operator layer
> > > >
> > > > The above release plan is simply what I had in mind. Nothing is
> > concrete!
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, we shouldn't remove jdk7 support in 0.10.1. Perhaps,
> 0.11.0.
> > > > will be a good starting point? Or should we wait until we are at 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > I think the users in the community need to provide feedback so we can
> > > make
> > > > progress accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Navina
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Roger Hoover <
> roger.hoover@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for me.  We're already using Java 8 in PRD.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Yi Pan <ni...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am +1 on the JDK8 move. As Jake has elaborated, there are
> > numerous
> > > > > > advantages from 1.8 source compatible code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the downside of dropping JDK7 support, obviously, bin
> > > > > > backward-compatibility will be broken. However, moving to JDK8
> > binary
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a big effort for JDK7-compatible Java and Scala source code,
> in
> > > > term
> > > > > of
> > > > > > compiling and packaging. There is no need for source code change
> > and
> > > we
> > > > > > have been building JDK8 binary in LinkedIn and running in
> > production
> > > w/
> > > > > > JDK8 for a long time w/o seeing any issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For users cannot upgrade their runtime JVM version to JDK8
> easily,
> > > the
> > > > > > latest coming release will still be on JDK7. Question is: how
> long
> > > > should
> > > > > > we hold back in waiting for this upgrade?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Yi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Jacob Maes <
> jacob.maes@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wanted to start a discussion to see what folks think about
> > moving
> > > > to
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > 1.8 source compatibility at some point after the 10.1 release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Java 8 has a number of nice features that can help us build
> more
> > > > > concise,
> > > > > > > maintainable, and robust software. A few notable features that
> > > would
> > > > > > > benefit Samza:
> > > > > > > 1. Stream API - provide a compact syntax for expressing
> > > > transformations
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > collections. These may be foundational for future API work
> > > including
> > > > > > > Operators (SAMZA-914)
> > > > > > > 2. Default Methods - enable us to evolve interfaces without
> > > breaking
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > 3. Concurrent package enhancements - generally make concurrent
> > > > > > programming
> > > > > > > easier, which will be more important with features like
> > > > multithreading
> > > > > > > support (SAMZA-863)
> > > > > > > 4. Lambdas - love them or hate them, they do reduce the amount
> of
> > > > > > > boilerplate code, especially when used in place of anonymous
> > > classes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It certainly would be nice to leverage some of the features
> > above.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > we have historically supported Java versions N and N-1 and it
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > like Java 9 is coming until next year. So, discontinuing
> support
> > > for
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > 1.7 at this point would be a departure from our normal support
> > > matrix
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > significant period of time. Thoughts on the pros and cons?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know some folks in this community are still on Java 1.7. How
> > many
> > > > of
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > stay up to date with the latest Samza? Do you have a roadmap to
> > > move
> > > > to
> > > > > > > Java 1.8?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Jake
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Navina R.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>