Hi, Just to clarify: if Gradle 9.x needs JDK17+ to run, Iceberg can still compile/provide JDK11 bytecode (https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/compatibility.html). So, my proposal is in two steps: 1. Upgrade to JDK17 and Gradle 9, still compiling target java 11. 2. Upgrade to compile/provider Java 17 bytecode.
Thoughts ? Regards JB On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 8:38 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for driving this. +1 on dropping Java 11, the ecosystem has already > moved on, and Java 17 is the new baseline. > > For Java 25, I think it’s safer to say it’s not officially supported yet at > this moment. > > Yufei > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 2:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> The purpose of this thread was to discuss dropping Java 11 support and >> requiring Java 17 as the minimum version for Iceberg Java modules. >> >> Regarding Java 25, I agree that adopting it now is a much larger >> effort, primarily due to upstream dependencies like Hadoop. >> Specifically, the removal of the SecurityManager and issues with >> Subject.doAs() need to be resolved in Hadoop before we can fully >> support JDK 25. >> >> It seems there is a strong consensus for dropping Java 11. I will move >> forward with creating the necessary update/cleanup PR for the next >> major release. Thoughts ? >> >> Regards, >> JB >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 8:02 PM Holden Karau <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > FWIW all non-EOL versions of Spark support JDK17. JDK25 support is going >> > to take a hot minute though in Spark land. >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 2:47 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> +1 for dropping Java 11. Is it considered EOL by most vendors. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 7:25 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Thanks everyone for the feedback on JDK 25. It should not be tied to >> >> > the decision of dropping JDK 11 support. We can add it whenever the >> >> > upstream blockers are resolved. >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:13 PM Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Moving to JDK 17+ is indeed a good thing, JDK 17 is a de facto new >> >> >> baseline for modern Java stacks, it was adopted by Maven, Gradle, >> >> >> Spring, Spark, Jackson3 and many popular Java projects as the minimal >> >> >> supported Java version. >> >> >> >> >> >> For JDK 25, I think the bigdata projects are majorly blocked by Hadoop >> >> >> (currently the Hadoop UGI does not work on JDK 23+ due to JDK >> >> >> SecurityManager changes), the fixes already landed in Hadoop trunk >> >> >> branch, and suppose to be ported to branch-3.4, the next version >> >> >> Hadoop 3.4.3 will unlock this. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Cheng Pan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2025, at 13:55, Manu Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm encountering several issues with JDK 11, which prompted me to >> >> >> remove it in the PR mentioned by Kevin. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. Stuck with ORC-1.9.x which had CVE[1] and low release cadence >> >> >> 2. Upcoming Spark 4.1 can no longer target JDK11[2] >> >> >> 3. Upgrade to datafusion-comet 0.11.0 failed[3], although it has set >> >> >> JDK11 as target. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hence, I also support dropping Java 11, and we don't need workarounds >> >> >> here and there. >> >> >> >> >> >>> We will still have 3 LTS releases (17, 21, 25) after dropping Java 11. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't think we can have JDK25 till Spark, Flink and other >> >> >> dependencies support it >> >> >> >> >> >>> what does that make the minimum supported spark version >> >> >> >> >> >> That will be Spark 3.4 or Spark 3.5 if we drop 3.4 in 1.11 as well. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/14391 >> >> >> [2] >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14155/commits/53bc376e5bf71a8f802c28186de943aff01d27bc#diff-5392a130b5f4f17e365379befee19dd4105817da777df9b8699b5e5704ce4d68R54 >> >> >> [3] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14591 >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Manu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks for starting the convo, JB. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I'm in favor of dropping Java 11 support. >> >> >>> I see Manu has started a draft PR to remove java 11 [1]. This gives a >> >> >>> good overview of the current places where java 11 is used. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Depending on the scope of the work, I think we can also target the >> >> >>> next Iceberg release (1.11). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Best, >> >> >>> Kevin Liu >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14400/files >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 12:28 PM Steve Loughran <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >> > Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com >> > Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): >> > https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 >> > YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >> > Pronouns: she/her
