+1 for keeping java client compatible with java 8 and increasing server side minimum java version in Ozone 2.0. As for the specific version requirements for language, build, and runtime on the server side I'm not sure I have a strong opinion/enough information to weigh in on specifics right now.
Ethan On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 4:28 PM Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... Is there any particular reason we want Java 11? > > Just want to be more inclusive. Requiring a higher Java version > may exclude more applications. We could be forcing the dependent projects > such as HBase to bump their Java version. Not sure if it is true. > > > So for these reasons I think making a client/server distinction in the > Java version requirement would be better, instead of Recon vs. everything > else. > > That's a good point! We should require a lower Java version for > the client-side. It probably should stay at Java 8. > > Tsz-Wo > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:36 PM Attila Doroszlai <adorosz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Could it be that only Recon requires Java 21? > > > > Yes, technically only Recon (its dependencies) as far as I know. But: > > > > - I think it's easier to manage hosts with uniform Java version > > - we don't know when some other dependency of OM/SCM/etc. starts > > requiring newer Java > > > > So for these reasons I think making a client/server distinction in the > > Java version requirement would be better, instead of Recon vs. > > everything else. > > > > -Attila > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > > > > >
