Hi Greg, I will make a couple quick tweaks and open a vote. I think we should target JDK 17, JavaEE 10 and Jetty 12 because Jetty 11 is now EOL.
Chris On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:13 PM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Please open a vote thread for this. > > Thanks, > Greg > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:07 AM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I just wanted to bump this and see if anyone had more feedback before > > trying to call a vote for this for 4.0? > > > > Chris > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:41 PM Christopher Shannon < > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > 1. Ok sounds good we can target JDK 17 in this KIP if we decide to do > > that. > > > 2. For the EE version, I don't think it really matters since we won't > be > > > using any new features that I am aware of. It's just something I > noticed > > > that we will need to pick because Jetty 12 supports multiple versions > so > > it > > > would affect which spec jars we use. In the past Jetty versions have > > been > > > tied to a specific Servlet spec but the new Jetty 12 they have > abstracted > > > things away and they support multiple versions simultaneously. There's > > > different versions for all the specs but the primary one to note for us > > > would be that JavaEE 9 uses the Servlet 5.0 spec and JavaEE 10 uses the > > > Servlet 6.0 spec. JavaEE 11 is under development and will use the > Servlet > > > 6.1 spec. So we may not really need to call out the EE version at all > if > > it > > > doesn't matter and we are not using specific features but I wanted to > > bring > > > it up since multiple versions are listed as being compatible with Jetty > > 12 > > > so we need to pick one. On the main page they list the different > servlet > > > specs they support: https://eclipse.dev/jetty/ > > > 3. Right, I didn't mean we should include it in the KIP, I was more > > asking > > > I guess how to go about things. It looks like we could use a lot of it > > and > > > adapt the work already done. While it's under the Apache 2.0 license > and > > we > > > could use it, someone else wrote it so it would still be good to > properly > > > credit that person as you mentioned. If I work on it I would probably > > start > > > over with a new branch and just use the old PR as a guide and then > maybe > > > figure out a way to credit the original author. There's always that > > > co-author tag that could be used I think. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:11 PM Greg Harris > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hey Chris, > > >> > > >> Thanks for your questions! > > >> > > >> 1. KIPs are generally immutable once they've been voted on. In this > > >> case, I think it's better that this KIP include the bump to Java 17 > > >> just for Connect and MirrorMaker 2, and should include that in the KIP > > >> title. > > >> 2. I'm not familiar with the difference, can you provide some more > > >> context that would help us make a decision? AFAIU we haven't specified > > >> an EE version in the past, and we don't do any sort of automated > > >> testing for compatibility. I think it would be good to call out which > > >> components have JavaEE-sensitive dependencies (just connect-runtime?). > > >> We do not want to accidentally give users the idea that the clients > > >> depend on the JavaEE version, as that could be very confusing. > > >> 3. That's an implementation detail left up to anyone that effects this > > >> KIP on the repo, and doesn't need to be mentioned in the KIP itself. I > > >> have seen people adopt changes from un-merged PRs after the original > > >> contributor has lost interest, while still crediting the original > > >> contributor for their portion of the changes. If you're doing this, > > >> then it's ultimately up to your judgement. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Greg > > >> > > >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:30 AM Christopher Shannon > > >> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Greg, > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the detailed analysis on the connect framework. It sounds > > >> like > > >> > hopefully we can go ahead and require JDK 17+ and bump that > dependency > > >> for > > >> > the ConnectRestExtensionContext. > > >> > > > >> > I agree we can leave it open and hear what others think as well > about > > >> the > > >> > requirement, if everyone ends up agreeing, I can update the KIP to > > >> reflect > > >> > requiring JDK 17 and going with Jetty 12. > > >> > > > >> > I had a couple of questions > > >> > 1) If we go with JDK 17 as a requirement for the Connect framework, > > >> should > > >> > we modify and make that part of KIP-1013 or keep it in this one? > > >> > 2) Should we go with JavaEE 9 or JavaEE 10? I'm not sure how much it > > >> > matters in this case. > > >> > 3) Can we just re-open https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10176 > as > > a > > >> > starting point or maybe we can create a new PR and use it as a > basis? > > >> It's > > >> > a bit old so I suspect there would be a ton of conflicts so it might > > be > > >> > best to start over and use it as a guide. I can work on a new PR > once > > we > > >> > are all on the same page. I don't think it would take too long to > put > > >> > together since most of the work is just dependency updates and > package > > >> > renaming. > > >> > > > >> > Chris > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 8:59 PM Greg Harris > > >> <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hey all, > > >> > > > > >> > > I looked into how Debezium handled the javax->jakarta changeover > for > > >> > > Quarkus, and found this release note: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://debezium.io/blog/2023/04/20/debezium-2-2-final-released/#new-quarkus-3 > > >> > > It appears that Debezium 2.1 required Quarkus < 3.0, and Debezium > > 2.2 > > >> > > required Quarkus >= 3.0. The upgrade for Kafka could be very > similar > > >> > > and not incur a major version release. > > >> > > > > >> > > We can leave some time to hear from anyone else that is impacted > by > > >> > > this change, but from the open source projects present on github, > > this > > >> > > LGTM. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Greg > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 5:27 PM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Chris, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you so much for opening this KIP, and making sure Kafka > > keeps > > >> up > > >> > > > with the rest of the Java ecosystem! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I took a look around at some Open Source connector > > implementations, > > >> > > > and checked their Java version support: > > >> > > > * The Aiven connect plugins (http, bigquery, jdbc, > elasticsearch, > > >> > > > opensearch, commons, s3, transforms, gcs), 6/9 are tested with > JDK > > >> 17 > > >> > > > in CI, 2/9 JDK 11, and 1/9 JDK 8. I'll look into improving the > > >> testing > > >> > > > matrix, but I don't expect substantial problems with requiring > JDK > > >> 17. > > >> > > > * The Debezium Project lists Java 11+ compatibility: > > >> > > > https://debezium.io/releases/ and appears to use Java 22 (ga) > and > > >> 23 > > >> > > > (ea) in their CI: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/debezium/debezium/blob/9cdaa38453c9f065c6075d31636592a5b147518f/.github/workflows/jdk-outreach-workflow.yml#L20 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I think the bigger problem really is the ConnectRestExtension, > > since > > >> > > > we've baked the rs-api type into the signature of > > >> > > > ConnectRestExtensionContext. > > >> > > > * Aiven doesn't have any ConnectRestExtensions, so this isn't a > > >> concern > > >> > > for us. > > >> > > > * The Debezium Project has at least 6 ConnectRestExtension > > >> > > > implementations: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adebezium%2Fdebezium+ConnectRestExtension+language%3AJava&type=code&l=Java > > >> > > > . Some of these are baked into artifacts that I know for a fact > > are > > >> > > > used in normal connect deployments. > > >> > > > * I found a healthcheck extension that looks unmaintained: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/LoObp4ck/kafka-connect-healthchecks/blob/2d9dbfee900d9f85e6acd9a09bd04969afa46261/src/main/java/com/loobpack/data/kafka/connect/healthcheck/extension/HealthCheckConnectRestExtension.java#L9 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I figure that adopting this KIP would mean that the Debezium > > project > > >> > > > would be forced to bump their major version 3.0 to be compatible > > >> with > > >> > > > Connect 4.0, or otherwise change their packaging, so I'd like to > > >> hear > > >> > > > from the Debezium folks what they think of this proposal. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Greg > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:43 PM Christopher Shannon > > >> > > > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm proposing a KIP for Kafka 4.0 to upgrade to to Jakarta and > > >> JavaEE 9 > > >> > > > > APIs. This will also upgrade dependencies like Jetty and move > > >> away from > > >> > > > > the depcrated javax namespace to be in line with other > libraries > > >> and > > >> > > > > frameworks. There was some initial > > >> > > > > < > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/p4qbqh8r77h4khn3yoof2b0gbq3wbc5q > > >> > > > >> > > > > discussion and below is the KIP. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Please take a look and let me know what you think: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1032%3A+Upgrade+to+Jakarta+and+JavaEE+9+in+Kafka+4.0 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > Chris > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
