I don't believe Java 7 was LTS, and I hope that others will have upgraded long
before that. If that is the release timeframe for 3.0, then I suppose that
would makes sense, I would still doubt that people would be going newer than
java 11, just my opinion of what I'm seeing.
Regards
~adam
Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | Bottomline
Technologies
Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418
www.bottomline.com
On 12/15/20, 4:25 AM, "Ilya Kasnacheev" <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
> >
>
>
