Hello! I guess Ignite 3.0 will be ready for production use somewhere in 2022, realistically. By that time, Java 8 will be long enough out of support so that most companies will actually forbid its use, WRT vulnerabilities et all.
After all we have managed to upgrade from Java 7 to Java 8 and only got a minor amount of complaints. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 14 дек. 2020 г. в 19:06, Carbone, Adam <adam.carb...@bottomline.com>: > So just one bit to consider... Are there features that you need to use in > these newer versions of java? Or are we just updating to stay current? The > reason I ask is that there are still lots of people in an enterprise space > that are beholden to having to support legacy JAVAEE supported applications > on Websphere, Weblogic, Redhat, etc... and the organizations that use those > platforms are slow to move... Most of them are still on Java8 > > So as a platform I think a strong consideration needs to be towards having > the broadest possible support profile until it becomes an impediment to > doing things that the platform needs. So far I haven't seen huge things in > the newer versions of java that are must haves ( a few exceptions are > things that would be really nice to take advantage of ). > > I think that apache commons has taken the right approach by staying on > java 8 giving the largest possible user base. > > Even standardizing on java 11 would have to make us reconsider Ignite as > the platform we are using, we are not so invested in it as of now, even > though we have big plans to leverage it. Just because we aren't sure when > we are going to be able to upgrade from java8. It has support through 2022, > so I imagine that is when we will be discussing that. > > Regards > > ~Adam > > Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | > Bottomline Technologies > Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 > www.bottomline.com > > > > On 11/24/20, 7:38 AM, "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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKAO2Ejs8$ > > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/ignite-3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKIq24lxF$ > > > [2] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKFGL_oJx$ > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache*Ignite*3.0*ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess__;Kysj!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKNhWzQ0s$ > > > > > > -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 > > > >
