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

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


+
Keith Turner 2013-06-03, 22:05
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-06-03, 21:49
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:10
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:23
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-03, 22:31
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:39
+
William Slacum 2013-06-03, 22:31
+
Keith Turner 2013-06-03, 22:22
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:15
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-03, 21:04
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-03, 22:01
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-03, 23:05
+
Dave Marion 2013-06-04, 00:54
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-04, 01:05
+
Ben Popp 2013-06-04, 02:37
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-04, 12:21
+
John Vines 2013-06-04, 14:51
+
Christopher 2013-06-05, 17:54
+
John Vines 2013-06-05, 18:14
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-06-05, 18:20
+
Eric Newton 2013-06-05, 20:36
+
Christopher 2013-06-05, 20:42
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-05, 23:09
+
Mike Drob 2013-06-05, 23:25
+
David Medinets 2013-06-05, 23:29
+
Mike Drob 2013-06-05, 23:28
+
John Vines 2013-06-05, 23:12
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "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."
>
> Redhat has actually stepped in and is continuing support for java 1.6, so
> this issue is covered.
>

Thats interesting.  Until 1.6, there was major java release every one or
two years.  Then there was almost 5 years between 1.6 and 1.7.  Given that
1.6 was the only game in town for such a long period I maybe it has
more inertia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history

>
>
> 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
+
John Vines 2013-06-05, 22:09
+
Jason Trost 2013-06-05, 22:48
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-05, 18:12
+
German Gutierrez 2013-06-06, 02:53
+
David Lyle 2013-06-06, 03:51
+
David Medinets 2013-06-06, 13:52
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-06-06, 14:22
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-06, 15:03
+
Christopher 2013-06-06, 18:09
+
Christopher 2013-06-07, 16:05
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-06, 14:00