i think that logic is reasonable, but then the same should also apply to scala 2.10, which is also unmaintained/unsupported at this point (basically has been since march 2015 except for one hotfix due to a license incompatibility)
who wants to support scala 2.10 three years after they did the last maintenance release? On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Removing compatibility (with jdk, etc) can be done with a major release- > given that 7 has been EOLed a while back and is now unsupported, we have to > decide if we drop support for it in 2.0 or 3.0 (2+ years from now). > > Given the functionality & performance benefits of going to jdk8, future > enhancements relevant in 2.x timeframe ( scala, dependencies) which > requires it, and simplicity wrt code, test & support it looks like a good > checkpoint to drop jdk7 support. > > As already mentioned in the thread, existing yarn clusters are unaffected > if they want to continue running jdk7 and yet use spark2 (install jdk8 on > all nodes and use it via JAVA_HOME, or worst case distribute jdk8 as > archive - suboptimal). > I am unsure about mesos (standalone might be easier upgrade I guess ?). > > > Proposal is for 1.6x line to continue to be supported with critical fixes; > newer > features will require 2.x and so jdk8 > > Regards > Mridul > > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016, Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >>
