Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Mike Drob 2013-06-05, 23:28
Also. -1 because I forgot that there was a vote open.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Mike Drob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think building the binary release using 1.7, but still maintaining 1.6
> compatibility is a nice compromise. You're providing enough of a carrot to
> use 1.7 (hey look, we already built it for you), but you're not alienating
> the users that still need 1.6 classes for whatever reason. If something
> like this were to be implemented, then it would be necessary to provide
> very clear documentation on how to run Accumulo on different JREs.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>> There is concern that has been voiced by users in which this may alienate
>> them from moving to Accumulo 1.6. Many arguments for moving to Java 1.7 are
>> based on wanting to use some new feature or syntactic sugar. Also, not
>> building artifacts against Java 1.7 would not keep people from running with
>> Java 1.7 (even though Accumulo was built against 1.6).
>>
>> On the other side, Oracle has stated that no further security-related
>> issues will be patched on Java 1.6. Given that most people using Accumulo
>> are security minded, this is important.
>>
>> Forcing Java 1.7 alienates a group of users. Allowing users to run with
>> Java 1.6 or 1.7 virtual machines satisfies all parties. As such, I don't
>> believe this is best.
>>
>> Like John said, I agree that adequate discussion hasn't been had here to
>> justify forcing a change. Accumulo is not that popular that we can force
>> people to do what we think is best. I would be happy to continue to
>> participate in discussions as to the concrete benefits forcing Java 1.7
>> provides.
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2013 04:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> The vote was already called, and it was a vote on whether we should do
>>> it now (now, as in for Accumulo 1.6.0 development). If you think more
>>> time is needed, then your vote should be no. I don't think it's
>>> productive to continue to have a meta-discussion about whether or not
>>> a discussion/vote should occur. Just vote "-1", with a reason "not
>>> enough time to address potential concerns".
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given this thread, I think more discussion is necessary before a vote.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  All-
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free to
>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal to
>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>>
>>>>> authentication
>>>>>
>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on the
>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  http://www.cloudera.com/**content/cloudera-content/**