Tony, I think this should be 0.x.0 and not 1.0.0 because it is easily addressed by operations folks by upgrading their JVM and they already have substantive motivation to do so (no more vulnerability fixes in Java 7). We also want to keep our ability to stay close to the upgrade cycle of Jetty (a critical dependency of ours) which often includes fixes related to security.
I personally see this as a no harm situation. I've wanted to propose this for some time but felt it was too premature because there were still updates for Java 7 coming related to security. Now that this too has stopped this seems a prudent time to act. I also acknowledge I'm walking a pretty fine line with my argument here. It won't offend me if we do a 1.0.0 release in the near future :-) Joe On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > based on Joey's question, Joe, any reasons you thought this should be 0.3.0 > and not 1.0.0? > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Are we ok with breaking backwards compatibility in minor releases? Updating >> the minimum Java version is a breaking change for operational teams. >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 19:58 Bobby Owolabi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > I think this move makes a lot sense. I think Joe’s two arguments are >> very >> > strong and some of the new language constructs can open up cool ways to >> > enhance the developer experience with the framework (hat tip Adam). >> > >> > Bobby >> > >> > > On Jun 16, 2015, at 10:48 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Created a JIRA for this: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-692 >> > > >> > > Will keep it up to date if any gotchas come out of this discussion. >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Adam Taft <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> The Streams API and new Date API are worthy. Would love to >> (eventually) >> > >> see a ProcessSession method that can return a Stream<FlowFile>. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> All, >> > >>> >> > >>> Would like to kick off a discussion for thoughts on moving the >> minimum >> > >>> Java requirement for NiFi to Java 8. There are a two immediate >> > >>> reasons that make this seem wise: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1) Java 7 EOL and specifically for security fixes >> > >>> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/java_7.xml >> > >>> >> > >>> 2) Key dependencies moving to Java8 >> > >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jetty-announce/msg00080.html >> > >>> >> > >>> Now, item 1 does not mean we must move our minimum to Java 8 but item >> > >>> 2 does. Java 8 offers some nice language enhancements which could be >> > >>> quite useful within the framework. >> > >>> >> > >>> I propose we make this change happen in NiFi 0.3.x line. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks >> > >>> Joe >> > >>> >> > >> > >>
