On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 7:38 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Thanks Julian. > > I estimate the dual module work to be ~2 weeks of work (with testing, > docs, CI updates, etc) > > I expect that at some point someone will be motivated enough by regulatory > pressure to implement that if Calcite doesn't drop Java 8 support by then. > > > We could probaby stick to the servlet API, but then we'd have to > reimplement te security filters and authentication stuff, which would > probably end up being more work and disruption than the two Jetty > compatibility modules. > Another option would be abusing the reflection API to mask the > differences, but that's also a rather desperate move. > These wouldn't work, as these don't solve the JDK version incompatibility. We need separate binary artifcats for Java 8 and 17, so it's either compatibility modules or duplicated branches. Sorry for the misinformation. Maintaining two separate branches for Java 8 and 17 is another (painful) > option. > > Istvan > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:43 PM Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ok, it sounds like dual versions is not an option. >> >> There is no “plan” for Java 17. (Or, more precisely, for dropping support >> for earlier Java versions.) We’ve not started the conversation. >> >> Julian >> >> > On Aug 11, 2025, at 21:11, Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> > >> > When we did this on HBase, a lot of the Jetty facing code had to be >> updated. >> > We did not attempt to have code that works with either version, but I >> got >> > the impression that Jetty 9.4 and 12.0 are not API compatible. >> > (I was only involved as a reviewer) >> > >> > My guess is that we'd have to factor out the Jetty facing code into a >> > separate module and duplicate it, add profiles, etc. >> > This would also affect the server uberjar, which would also have to be >> > duplicated. >> > I haven't checked if we use any Jetty code in the client libraries, if >> we >> > do that may also be affected. >> > >> > In other word, it would be quite a lot of work and added complexity. >> > >> > What is the plan for bumping the minimum requirement to Java 17 in the >> main >> > Calcite codebase ? >> > >> > Istvan >> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:44 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Is multi-version compatibility an option? By which I mean, do we use >> >> any APIs that have been changed/removed since Jetty 9.4. >> >> >> >> If so, people on Java 8 could continue to use Jetty 9.4, and people on >> >> Java 17+ could upgrade to Jetty 12. The default Jetty version would be >> >> the latest, but we would give instructions on how to use an earlier >> >> Jetty version, and continue to test Java 8. >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:23 AM Istvan Toth >> <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The limitation is Java 8 compatibility. >> >>> >> >>> Upgrading to Jetty 12 means bumping the minimum supported Java >> supported >> >>> version to 17, so this discussion is basically about how long to >> maintain >> >>> Java 8 compatibility. >> >>> >> >>> Jetty 9.4 is kind of EOL, there are usually updates for security >> issues, >> >>> but there are no formal guarantees for that. >> >>> >> >>> I think that this thread is the ideal forum for this discussion. >> >>> >> >>> Istvan >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 6:55 PM Lucas Capistrant < >> >> capistrant.lu...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> I’m looking into the current Jetty dependency in Calcite Avatica, >> >> which is >> >>>> still on Jetty 9 (EOL), and wanted to reach out to the community to >> >> discuss >> >>>> the potential for upgrading to Jetty 12. >> >>>> >> >>>> In general, I’d like to - >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. Ask if there’s been any prior discussion or dev work on upgrading >> to >> >>>> Jetty 12 >> >>>> >> >>>> 2. Gauge interest and alignment in moving to Jetty 12. Would >> creating a >> >>>> Jira for deeper discussion be the right next step? >> >>>> >> >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts. >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> Lucas Capistrant >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer >> >>> *Email*: st...@cloudera.com >> >>> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> >> >>> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> >> >>> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: >> >>> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: >> >> Cloudera >> >>> on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer >> > *Email*: st...@cloudera.com >> > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> >> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> >> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: >> > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: >> Cloudera >> > on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> >> > ------------------------------ >> > ------------------------------ >> > > > -- > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > *Email*: st...@cloudera.com > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > -- *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer *Email*: st...@cloudera.com cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
