+1. Scala 2.9 has been 4 years old and I think it is time to drop it.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 for dropping 2.9 > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Sriharsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> > wrote: > > > I am +1 on dropping 2.9.x support. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > > > On July 8, 2015 at 7:08:12 AM, Ismael Juma (mli...@juma.me.uk) wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The responses in this thread were positive, but there weren't many. A few > > months passed and Sriharsha encouraged me to reopen the thread given that > > the 2.9 build has been broken for at least a week[1] and no-one seemed to > > notice. > > > > Do we want to invest more time so that the 2.9 build continues to work or > > do we want to focus our efforts on 2.10 and 2.11? Please share your > > opinion. > > > > Best, > > Ismael > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2325 > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ismael Juma <mli...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > The Kafka build currently includes support for Scala 2.9, which means > > that > > > it cannot take advantage of features introduced in Scala 2.10 or depend > > on > > > libraries that require it. > > > > > > This restricts the solutions available while trying to solve existing > > > issues. I was browsing JIRA looking for areas to contribute and I > quickly > > > ran into two issues where this is the case: > > > > > > * KAFKA-1351: "String.format is very expensive in Scala" could be > solved > > > nicely by using the String interpolation feature introduced in Scala > > 2.10. > > > > > > * KAFKA-1595: "Remove deprecated and slower scala JSON parser from > > > kafka.consumer.TopicCount" could be solved by using an existing JSON > > > library, but both jackson-scala and play-json require 2.10 (argonaut > > > supports Scala 2.9, but it brings other dependencies like scalaz). We > can > > > workaround this by writing our own code instead of using libraries, of > > > course, but it's not ideal. > > > > > > Other features like Scala Futures and value classes would also be > useful > > > in some situations, I would think (for a more extensive list of new > > > features, see > > > > > > http://scala-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/Scala-2-10-0-now-available-td4634126.html > > > ). > > > > > > Another pain point of supporting 2.9.x is that it doubles the number of > > > build and test configurations required from 2 to 4 (because the 2.9.x > > > series was not necessarily binary compatible). > > > > > > A strong argument for maintaining support for 2.9.x was the client > > > library, but that has been rewritten in Java. > > > > > > It's also worth mentioning that Scala 2.9.1 was released in August 2011 > > > (more than 3.5 years ago) and the 2.9.x series hasn't received updates > of > > > any sort since early 2013. Scala 2.10.0, in turn, was released in > January > > > 2013 (over 2 years ago) and 2.10.5, the last planned release in the > > 2.10.x > > > series, has been recently released (so even 2.10.x won't be receiving > > > updates any longer). > > > > > > All in all, I think it would not be unreasonable to drop support for > > Scala > > > 2.9.x in a future release, but I may be missing something. What do > others > > > think? > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > -- > Grant Henke > Solutions Consultant | Cloudera > ghe...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke > -- -- Guozhang
