On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > If you want to go down that route, you should also ask somebody who has had > experience managing a large organization's applications and try to update > Scala version.
I understand both sides. But if you look at what I've been asking since the beginning, it's all about the cost and benefits of dropping support for java 1.7. The biggest argument in your original e-mail is about testing. And the testing cost is much bigger for supporting scala 2.10 than it is for supporting java 1.7. If you read one of my earlier replies, it should be even possible to just do everything in a single job - compile for java 7 and still be able to test things in 1.8, including lambdas, which seems to be the main thing you were worried about. > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: >> > Actually it's *way* harder to upgrade Scala from 2.10 to 2.11, than >> > upgrading the JVM runtime from 7 to 8, because Scala 2.10 and 2.11 are >> > not >> > binary compatible, whereas JVM 7 and 8 are binary compatible except >> > certain >> > esoteric cases. >> >> True, but ask anyone who manages a large cluster how long it would >> take them to upgrade the jdk across their cluster and validate all >> their applications and everything... binary compatibility is a tiny >> drop in that bucket. >> >> -- >> Marcelo > > -- Marcelo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
