Good to hear that discussion moves forward in this regard! Java11 got quite
some improvements in G1, especially for mixed collections.
Are there any plans to allow 3.11 running with Java 11 as well? We are
currently on Cassandra 3.11 and it’s the only Java process in our deployment
stack which
Apologize, seems I sent the tickets and didn’t see the last mail from
Enrico which arrived in the meantime.
I will check the link, thanks for sharing!
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 9:17, Brandon Williams wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out, Enrico! It looks like Cassandra could
> be a natural fit he
Thanks for pointing this out, Enrico! It looks like Cassandra could
be a natural fit here since it's already using OpenJDK quite a bit.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:47 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>
> (sorry if being slightly off-topic, but let be throw this ball here)
>
> What about joining the OpenJ
Thank you all for your valuable feedback.
I just created below two tickets to facilitate the outcome of the
discussion:
- CASSANDRA-16894 - Java 11 support - remove the experimental flag
- CASSANDRA-16895 - Support Java 17
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 8:47, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> (sorry if being sli
(sorry if being slightly off-topic, but let be throw this ball here)
What about joining the OpenJDK Quality outreach program?
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/quality/Quality+Outreach
Many other Apache projects contribute to that initiative and this helps
Java to be always compatible with th
+1 on my side too for removal of experimental for 11, and moving trunk to
11+17
Le jeu. 26 août 2021 à 22:28, Nate McCall a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Last but not least, do we know anyone running Java 11 in production?
> > This thread was really opened as a stage to share our thoughts and
> > hopefu
>
>
> Last but not least, do we know anyone running Java 11 in production?
> This thread was really opened as a stage to share our thoughts and
> hopefully come up with a plan as a community.
>
I am aware of many large deployments using Java11 and 4.0 in production. +1
on making this non experime
+1 from me on both as well.
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Paulo Motta wrote:
>
> +1 to both removal of experimental for 11, and moving trunk to 11+17
>
>> Em qui., 26 de ago. de 2021 às 14:40, Brandon Williams
>> escreveu:
>>
>> +1 to both removal of experimental for 11, and moving trunk t
+1 to both removal of experimental for 11, and moving trunk to 11+17
Em qui., 26 de ago. de 2021 às 14:40, Brandon Williams
escreveu:
> +1 to both removal of experimental for 11, and moving trunk to 11+17
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:35 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I and contribu
+1 to both removal of experimental for 11, and moving trunk to 11+17
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:35 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
> >
> > I and contributors I work with have deployed 4.0 + JDK11 in production,
> > have found no issues, and would treat any issues that arise as ones we’re
> > able to
>
> I and contributors I work with have deployed 4.0 + JDK11 in production,
> have found no issues, and would treat any issues that arise as ones we’re
> able to jump on and contribute development + review resources to resolve in
> the project.
>
That's everything I need to hear. Let's remove the
+1 for moving Java 11 support out of experimental for 4.0 at minimum, and no
concern with doing so for 3.0/3.11 if someone were to propose.
I and contributors I work with have deployed 4.0 + JDK11 in production, have
found no issues, and would treat any issues that arise as ones we’re able to
j
One of the things I'm excited about with the 4+ releases is this running with
Java 17+ (including ZGC) so I would love to see this get more serious testing
and validation.
Anecdotal account - at an event a couple of years ago, I spoke to someone from
an education software company was running so
13 matches
Mail list logo
