+1 for removing Java 8 support. On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 9:24 AM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The different formatting preferences sounds annoying enough that I would > think we should just drop the Java8 support. Do we have anyone who strongly > prefers keeping Java 8 support? > > As an alternative I think it would be fine if we disable the formatter > when using Java 21 and just make sure we always have tests run with Java 8 > and the formatter checks in our CI. If we go this route I think we stay > with Java 8 for formatting and save the reformat for when Java 8 is dropped > officially. > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:32 AM Piotr Findeisen <piotr.findei...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Java 21 is the latest "LTS version" released GA in September 2023. >> Some Iceberg users already run with Java 21 on production (and FWIW Trino >> runs with 22 already) >> I thought it would be nice to add support for building and testing >> Iceberg with Java 21. >> >> Conceptually this is simple (see PR >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10474>), but there is a caveat >> worth discussing: >> There seems to be no version of Google Java Format library that can run >> under JDK 8 and JDK 21. >> Choosing Google Java Format version dynamically is not an option, because >> different versions have slightly different formatting preferences, so >> updating formatter version requires updating the code in a handful of >> places. >> >> Question: >> do we want to add support for building and testing with Java 21? >> Ability to test with Java 21 would match what some of Iceberg users are >> doing. >> If we choose so, we would simply disable spotless formatter when build >> runs on Java 21 (or 8 if this is preferred instead) >> >> or we prefer to wait until we can drop Java 8 support >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10518> first, and only then add >> Java 21 support? >> >> Pre-existing context: >> the topic has been discussed on the PR here: >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10474#discussion_r1658513019 >> and it was proposed there to bring this to Dev group attention. >> >> Best, >> PF >> >> -- Ryan Blue Databricks
