If jetty 9 is being looked at for inclusion it will affect the jasper bits in the poms. Jetty 9 has its own jsp compiler and would need to replace jasper, but that's largely just pom changes iirc. Jetty 9 does revamp some apis and should definitely be looked at by people more knowledgeable with how jetty is used, especially as it relates to secure mode.
Rob On 11/13/2013 03:31 PM, Steve Loughran wrote:
I've just been through some of these as part of my background project, "fix up the POMs" https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9991. 1. I've applied the simple low/risk ones. 2. I've not done the bookkeeper one, as people working with that code need to play with it first. 3. I've not touched anything related to {jersey, tomcat, jetty} This is more than just a java6/7 issue, is is that Jetty has been very brittle in the past, and there's code in hadoop to detect when it's not actually servicing requests properly. Moving up Jetty/web server versions is something that needs to be done carefull and with consensus -and once you leave Jetty alone, I don't know where the jersey and tomcat changes go. There is always the option of s/jetty/r/grizzly/ -steve On 1 November 2013 14:57, Robert Rati <rr...@redhat.com> wrote:Putting the java 6 vs java 7 issue aside, what about the other patches to update dependencies? Can those be looked at an planned for inclusion into a releation? Rob On 10/31/2013 05:51 PM, Andrew Wang wrote:I'm in agreement with Steve on this one. We're aware that Java 6 is EOL, but we can't drop support for the lifetime of the 2.x line since it's a (very) incompatible change. AFAIK a 3.x release fixing this isn't on any of our horizons yet. Best, Andrew On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Robert Rati <rr...@redhat.com> wrote: https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-9594<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-9594><https:**//issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-9594<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9594>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-5431<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-5431> <htt**ps://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/MAPREDUCE-5431<h ttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-5431>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-9611<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-9611> <https:**//issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-9611<http s://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9611>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-9613<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-9613> <https:**//issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-9613<http s://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9613>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-9623<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-9623> <https:**//issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-9623<http s://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9623>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HDFS-5411<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HDFS-5411> <https://**issues.apache.org/jira/browse/**HDFS-5411<https: //issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5411>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-10067<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-10067> <https**://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-10067<htt ps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10067>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HDFS-5075<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HDFS-5075> <https://**issues.apache.org/jira/browse/**HDFS-5075<https: //issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5075>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-10068<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-10068> <https**://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-10068<htt ps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10068>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-10075<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-10075> <https**://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-10075<htt ps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10075>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-10076<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-10076> <https**://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-10076<htt ps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10076>https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/HADOOP-9849<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-9849> <https:**//issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/HADOOP-9849<http s://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9849>most (all?) of these are pom changesA good number are basically pom changes to update to newer versions of dependencies. A few, such as commons-math3, required code changes as well because of a namespace change. Some are minor code changes to enhance compatibility with newer dependencies. Even tomcat is mostly changes in pom files. Most of the changes are minor. There are 2 big updates though: Jetty 9(which requires java 7) and tomcat 7. These are also the most difficultpatches to rebase when hadoop produces a new release. that's not going to go in the 2.x branch. Java 6 is still a commonplatform that people are using, because historically java7 (or any leading edge java version) is buggy. that said, our QA team did test hadoop 2 & HDP-2 at scale on java7 and openjdk 7, so it all works -it's just the commit "java7 only" is a big decision thatI realize moving to java 7 is a big decision and wasn't trying to imply this should happen without discussion and planning, just that it would be nice to have the discussion and see where things land. It can also help minimize work. There is an open bz for updating jetty to jetty 8 (the last version that would work on java 6), but if there are plans to move to java7, maybe it makes sense to just to jetty 9 and not test a new version of jetty twice. With Hadoop in Fedora running on these newer deps there is a test bed to play with to give some level of confidence before taking the plunge on any major change. Rob
