JDK25 is fairly traumatic security-API wise; not of direct relevance to iceberg AFAIK.
With a minimum of java17, what does that make the minimum supported spark version (i.e what version of spark supports java17?) On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 at 06:51, Eduard Tudenhöfner <[email protected]> wrote: > I would also be in favor of moving to JDK 17 but we need to check what the > implications are. > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 5:36 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah, the Flink benchmark shouldn't be a blocker, as the 1.20 module >> itself can be built and run with Java 17. >> >> I am in favor of dropping Java 11 support. We probably can also add Java >> 25 to the CI build after dropping Java 11, as JDK 25 (LTS) was released on >> Sep 25. We will still have 3 LTS releases (17, 21, 25) after dropping Java >> 11. >> >> I tend to be a bit more aggressive in dropping old versions. Let's see >> what others think. >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I worked on the Gradle 9.x upgrade for Iceberg. Gradle 9.2.x requires >>> JDK17 minimum. >>> >>> I did a quick pass on Iceberg modules, I see all modules support JDK17. >>> >>> There is a known issue with JDK 17 in the Flink 1.20 module for a >>> specific benchmark. The comment in >>> >>> flink/v1.20/flink/src/jmh/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/sink/shuffle/StatisticsRecordSerializerBenchmark.java. >>> This benchmark in 1.20 only works with Java 11 probably due to usage >>> of ArraysAsListSerializer in FlinkChillPackageRegistrar. Flink 2.0 and >>> above switched to DefaultSerializers#ArraysAsListSerializer in Kryo >>> 5.6. >>> Using Java 17 would result in the following error..."This affects only >>> that JMH benchmark, not the entire Flink 1.20 module. The module can >>> still be built and run with JDK 17; the benchmark has a runtime issue >>> due to Java module access restrictions. >>> I think we can live with that, waiting to remove Flink 1.20 in the >>> future. >>> >>> Regarding this, I would like to start a discussion to define JDK17 min >>> in Iceberg. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> NB: if we have a consensus, I would be happy to start an >>> update/cleanup PR and prepare the next "major" release with JDK17 min. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>
