[VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Adrien Grand
Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Alan Woodward-3
+1

> On 19 Mar 2019, at 18:22, Adrien Grand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
> sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Here is my +1.
>
> --
> Adrien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Uwe Schindler
In reply to this post by Adrien Grand
+1, let's do it.

I can take care of commenting out the MR-JAR parts and migrating from lucene.Future* to java.util.*  (but we should not remove it from build files, so we can use MR-JARS in the same way in future).

Just open an issue once the vote has passed, I'l take care of removing the Future* classes.

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Grand <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:23 PM
> To: Lucene Dev <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
> sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Here is my +1.
>
> --
> Adrien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Erick Erickson
I’d like to ask people to comment on SOLR-12809 (actually, maybe it should be a Lucene JIRA). It’s related in that we are getting more and more questions about whether Solr/Lucene version X works with Java Y….

We need to have a consistent story, inquiring minds want to know….



> On Mar 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1, let's do it.
>
> I can take care of commenting out the MR-JAR parts and migrating from lucene.Future* to java.util.*  (but we should not remove it from build files, so we can use MR-JARS in the same way in future).
>
> Just open an issue once the vote has passed, I'l take care of removing the Future* classes.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: [hidden email]
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adrien Grand <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:23 PM
>> To: Lucene Dev <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
>> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
>> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
>> that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
>> sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Here is my +1.
>>
>> --
>> Adrien
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Shalin Shekhar Mangar
In reply to this post by Adrien Grand
+1

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:53 PM Adrien Grand <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Shawn Heisey-2
In reply to this post by Adrien Grand
On 3/19/2019 12:22 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
> sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What advantages to we get as developers with Java 11?  I haven't been
following the advancements and don't know anything about what's new.  I
knew a little bit of what Java 8 provided over Java 7, so I was more
informed the last time we did this.

I see a short list of possible reasons we might want to adjust the minimum:

1) Java 11 makes life significantly better for us (committers,
contributors, casual code watchers) or significantly improves the user
experience at runtime.
2) Achieving compatibility with 11 breaks compat with Java 8.
3) If a functional OpenJDK 8 becomes significantly difficult to obtain.
4) If it becomes difficult to produce binaries compatible with 8.
5) Our dependencies increase their minimum Java version.

If none of those applies, then continuing to provide compatibility with
Java 8 seems like a good idea.

It does seem likely that at least one of the things in the list above
will occur in the next year or two ... and if it does, then I would be
all for it.

Thanks,
Shawn

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Adrien Grand
Hi Shawn,

If I ask the question the other way around: what does it buy us to
keep Java 8 as a minimum version requirement for Lucene/Solr 9.0? This
would only be helpful to users who can afford to upgrade to the latest
Lucene/Solr release but can't use a JDK version that will be about 2
years old at that time. This case doesn't sound strong enough to me to
keep supporting Java 8.

There are things that Java 11 is going to help with, but this is
almost irrelevant to me: if we can raise the minimum version
requirement to a version that is expected to be widely deployed at the
time of the release then we should do it. Just because it makes things
easier to reason about and to test. And then doing it early gives us
time to see how we can use new Java features to make Lucene/Solr
better.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:49 AM Shawn Heisey <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 3/19/2019 12:22 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> > Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> > Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> > 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> > that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
> > sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
>
> What advantages to we get as developers with Java 11?  I haven't been
> following the advancements and don't know anything about what's new.  I
> knew a little bit of what Java 8 provided over Java 7, so I was more
> informed the last time we did this.
>
> I see a short list of possible reasons we might want to adjust the minimum:
>
> 1) Java 11 makes life significantly better for us (committers,
> contributors, casual code watchers) or significantly improves the user
> experience at runtime.
> 2) Achieving compatibility with 11 breaks compat with Java 8.
> 3) If a functional OpenJDK 8 becomes significantly difficult to obtain.
> 4) If it becomes difficult to produce binaries compatible with 8.
> 5) Our dependencies increase their minimum Java version.
>
> If none of those applies, then continuing to provide compatibility with
> Java 8 seems like a good idea.
>
> It does seem likely that at least one of the things in the list above
> will occur in the next year or two ... and if it does, then I would be
> all for it.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Jan Høydahl / Cominvent
In reply to this post by Adrien Grand
+1

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

19. mar. 2019 kl. 19:22 skrev Adrien Grand <[hidden email]>:

Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, [hidden email]
For additional commands, [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Simon Willnauer-4
+1 - Java 8 EOLed last year - moving on in 2020 is reasonable and it's our responsibility to move with the platform we are running on.

simon

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:27 AM Jan Høydahl <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

19. mar. 2019 kl. 19:22 skrev Adrien Grand <[hidden email]>:

Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, [hidden email]
For additional commands, [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Adrien Grand

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:23 PM Adrien Grand <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Robert Muir
In reply to this post by Uwe Schindler
+1 and thanks for cleaning this up Uwe.

the MR-JAR can be a good solution to use newer methods where available
in specific cases, but it does not solve everything. We should allow
opportunities in master branch such as potentially restructuring code
to take advantage of the new module system and so on, which could
drastically improve usability.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:01 PM Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> +1, let's do it.
>
> I can take care of commenting out the MR-JAR parts and migrating from lucene.Future* to java.util.*  (but we should not remove it from build files, so we can use MR-JARS in the same way in future).
>
> Just open an issue once the vote has passed, I'l take care of removing the Future* classes.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: [hidden email]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrien Grand <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:23 PM
> > To: Lucene Dev <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
> > Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
> > 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
> > that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
> > sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> > --
> > Adrien
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Erick Erickson
+1. It’s really the same argument as always, right? We can’t stay
on the same version forever. It’s a little embarrassing to be on
something that’s EOL. Ignoring the Oracke/OpenJDK question.

Speaking of which, I’m still looking for responses to “what versions
of Java from what organization does the community recommend”,
see SOLR-12809


> On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1 and thanks for cleaning this up Uwe.
>
> the MR-JAR can be a good solution to use newer methods where available
> in specific cases, but it does not solve everything. We should allow
> opportunities in master branch such as potentially restructuring code
> to take advantage of the new module system and so on, which could
> drastically improve usability.
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:01 PM Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1, let's do it.
>>
>> I can take care of commenting out the MR-JAR parts and migrating from lucene.Future* to java.util.*  (but we should not remove it from build files, so we can use MR-JARS in the same way in future).
>>
>> Just open an issue once the vote has passed, I'l take care of removing the Future* classes.
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> -----
>> Uwe Schindler
>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>> eMail: [hidden email]
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Adrien Grand <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:23 PM
>>> To: Lucene Dev <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
>>> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
>>> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
>>> that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
>>> sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Here is my +1.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adrien
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

david.w.smiley@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Adrien Grand
+1 -- great point about Lucene/Solr's next major release being a ways off; this makes the decision pretty easy.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:23 PM Adrien Grand <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Varun Thacker-4
+1

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:47 AM David Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 -- great point about Lucene/Solr's next major release being a ways off; this makes the decision pretty easy.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:23 PM Adrien Grand <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
sounds like a conservative requirement to me.

What do you think?

Here is my +1.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Master/9.0 to require Java 11

Adrien Grand
This vote has passed. I opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8738.

Thanks all.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Varun Thacker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:47 AM David Smiley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 -- great point about Lucene/Solr's next major release being a ways off; this makes the decision pretty easy.
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:23 PM Adrien Grand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Now that Lucene/Solr 8.0 has shipped I'd like us to consider requiring
>>> Java 11 for 9.0, currently the master branch. We had 18 months between
>>> 7.0 and 8.0, so if we assume a similar interval between 8.0 and 9.0
>>> that would mean releasing 9.0 about 2 years after Java 11, which
>>> sounds like a conservative requirement to me.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Here is my +1.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adrien
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>


--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]