Hello,

I also think this sounds like a reasonable suggestion, also given that 3.9
was the first version to make KRaft feature complete, which means it's the
first version to bring production readiness for KRaft, in many contexts.

+1 from me.

BR,

Den tors 21 nov. 2024 kl 10:51 skrev Josep Prat <josep.p...@aiven.io.invalid
>:

> Hi all,
> Given 3.9 is the latest version before a major, and 4.0.0 comes with
> breaking changes (Zookeeper removal, Scala and Java version drops...) I
> think it's fair to assume that a considerable subset of Kafka users will be
> using 3.9 for a little longer than we usually support versions (roughly 1
> year). I would be in favour of considering 3.9 as and LTS and offer support
> for, let's say 18 to 24 months.
> In that spirit, I would be in favour of releasing a future 3.9 version that
> can run with JDK 23.
>
> Best,
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 3:46 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > It seems the main question is whether we should consider version 3.9 as
> an
> > LTS release. For example, will we continue with versions like 3.9.1,
> 3.9.2,
> > ... 3.9.100?
> >
> > If yes, we should backport both KIP-1006 and support for future JDKs.
> >
> > If not, backporting KIP-1006 to 3.9 would be sufficient to fix the issue
> of
> > running version 3.9 under JDK 23, even if JDK 23 is still not officially
> > supported by 3.9.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Chia-Ping
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid> 於 2024年11月21日 週四 上午4:37寫道:
> >
> > > > Has the SecurityManager been fully removed in JDK 23?
> > > > What is the effect of running Kafka 3.9.0 with JDK 23?
> > >
> > > The SecurityManager has been degraded, so by default our users
> experience
> > > an UnsupportedOperationException. They can work-around this by setting
> a
> > > system property.
> > > In JRE 24, JEP-486 [1] has removed this workaround, so an unpatched
> 3.9.x
> > > will experience an UnsupportedOperationException unconditionally.
> > >
> > > > I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17638
> > > > which explicitly adds JDK 23 to our CI with a fix version of 4.0.0.
> > Lack
> > > of
> > > > support for JDK 23 in 3.9.x is not a bug, it is what we planned (as
> far
> > > as
> > > > I can tell).
> > >
> > > Originally we were planning to get this change into 3.9.0, but we
> missed
> > > the merge deadline. I opened that ticket afterwards to be fixed in
> 4.0.0
> > > because that's the next release.
> > > The patch was always intended to be backportable, and I intended to
> > > backport it [2].
> > >
> > > I understand that if we consider Java 23 support to be a feature (which
> > is
> > > the standing decision), this is a pretty obvious case of missing
> feature
> > > freeze, and the current course of action (releasing in 4.0.0) is how we
> > > would handle it.
> > > I'm asking for this to be reconsidered as a bug fix, because it allows
> us
> > > to backport the change, which is what our users are asking for [3].
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > [1] https://openjdk.org/jeps/486
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16522#issuecomment-2377340024
> > > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/312lm617q05k87kxsrwlqhk8rfg29t7g
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:50 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > I have not been following this closely, so apologies for some basic
> > > > questions.
> > > >
> > > > Has the SecurityManager been fully removed in JDK 23?
> > > >
> > > > What is the effect of running Kafka 3.9.0 with JDK 23?
> > > >
> > > > By "4.0 breaking changes" do you mean changes to our JDK/Scala
> > supported
> > > > versions, removal or ZK, Kafka API changes, or something else?
> > > >
> > > > In general, I do not think we should change our supported JDK
> versions
> > > in a
> > > > hotfix release. I see
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17638
> > > > which explicitly adds JDK 23 to our CI with a fix version of 4.0.0.
> > Lack
> > > of
> > > > support for JDK 23 in 3.9.x is not a bug, it is what we planned (as
> far
> > > as
> > > > I can tell).
> > > >
> > > > Also, I feel that we should not add too much to 3.9.x aside from
> actual
> > > > bugs. If we backport things into 3.9.x, it will slow adoption of 4.x
> > and
> > > > increase our maintenance burden over time.
> > > >
> > > > Just my $0.02
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > David A
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:22 PM Greg Harris
> > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that 3.9.0 is released and 4.0.x is progressing, I'd like to
> > > > understand
> > > > > everyone's expectations about the 3.9.x branch, and ask for a
> > specific
> > > > > consensus on Java 23 support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some context that I think is relevant to the discussion:
> > > > > * KIP-1006 [1] proposes a backwards-compatible strategy for
> handling
> > > the
> > > > > ongoing removal of the SecurityManager, which is merged and due to
> > > > release
> > > > > in 4.0.0 [2].
> > > > > * KIP-1012 [3] rejected ongoing parallel feature development on a
> 3.x
> > > > > branch while having trunk on 4.x.
> > > > > * During the 3.9.0 release, the patch [2] was rejected [4] due to
> > > being a
> > > > > new feature which did not meet the feature freeze deadline.
> > > > > * Other than the SecurityManager removal, there are additional PRs
> > > which
> > > > > would also need to be backported for full Java 23 support [5]
> > > including a
> > > > > Scala patch upgrade.
> > > > > * Downstream users are asking for a backport [6] because adding
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > Java 23 would obligate them to also include the 4.0 breaking
> changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > So while adding Java version support in the past has been a
> KIP-less
> > > > > feature and normally only appears in the next version, it happens
> to
> > > > align
> > > > > with a major version bump this time. This will cause additional
> pain
> > > for
> > > > > users if we do not elect to backport this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1006%3A+Remove+SecurityManager+Support
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16522
> > > > > [3]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8+and+3.9+release
> > > > > [4]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/xy5rwd1w274qgpwf3qxxnzlqpoly5d4p
> > > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17638
> > > > > [6]
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16522#issuecomment-2488340682
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Arthur
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io>
>
> *Josep Prat*
> Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven*
> josep.p...@aiven.io   |   +491715557497
> aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io>   |   <https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud
> >
>   <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/>   <
> https://twitter.com/aiven_io>
> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH*
> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa, Hannu Valtonen,
> Anna Richardson, Kenneth Chen
> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>

Reply via email to