If we use Java15 for development, can the resulting package be used from a Java11 app (the latest LTS)?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jave15 looks awesome. > > * Hidden classes [1] can be used by codegenerators. > * Records [2] can replace boilerplate code like IgniteBiTuple, GridTupleX. > > [1] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/371 > [2] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/384 > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:38 PM Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so on. > > > > In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for the > > development! > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > Let's add maven plugins for sanity checks at the early stage. > > > I've created a ticket for this [1]. > > > > > > Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java 8. > > > Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and drop Java 8 in > > > Ignite 3.0? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751 > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a > > TeamCity > > > > project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation > or > > > > update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's > > reflected > > > in > > > > the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic > > steps > > > to > > > > make a change are described on the Wiki page [3]. > > > > > > > > Let me know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 > > > > [2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3 > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0#ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus > now. > > I > > > > > totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address > the > > > > > short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are > > several > > > > > active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical > > > process > > > > > for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for > > the > > > > > folks who would like to commit code. > > > > > > > > > > The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take > > > significant > > > > > time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore, > it's > > > > clear > > > > > to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for > quite > > > > some > > > > > time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that > having > > a > > > > > separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't > heard > > > any > > > > > clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this. > > > > > > > > > > That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days > - I > > > > will > > > > > create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can > > > discuss > > > > > and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see > > where > > > it > > > > > leads us. > > > > > > > > > > If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can > > > maintain > > > > > two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion > > > this > > > > > Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal > > to > > > > make > > > > > a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this. > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Good, > > > > >> > > > > >> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and > > > significance > > > > of > > > > >> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate > discussion > > > > >> streams > > > > >> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that: > > > > >> > > > > >> - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the > > > stream > > > > >> (this includes both functional targets and technical debt > issues > > > > >> pointed > > > > >> out by Sergey) > > > > >> - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams > > > (i.e. > > > > >> the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested) > > > > >> - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the > > streams > > > > >> - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate > > them > > > > >> - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current > > > > codebase > > > > >> based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in > or > > > > >> incremental approaches make more sense) > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov >
