What would be the recommended JDK, is Hotspot still the way to go or do
JDK8 users already consider OpenJDK production-grade now ?
On 05/07/2015 07:00 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Yes, it is.
>
Yes, it is.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Nick Bailey wrote:
> Is running 2.1 with java 8 a supported or recommended way to run at this
> point? If not then we'll be requiring users to upgrade both java and C* at
> the same time when making the jump to 3.0.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM,
There’s no reason why people can’t run java 8 with 2.1. IIRC the only issue
we’d had with it was Dave’s
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7028. That’s probably the best
thing for people to do though - run java 8 with 2.1 so the jump to 3.0 isn’t as
significant. Good point.
> O
Is running 2.1 with java 8 a supported or recommended way to run at this
point? If not then we'll be requiring users to upgrade both java and C* at
the same time when making the jump to 3.0.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> The switch will necessarily hurt 3.0 adoption
The switch will necessarily hurt 3.0 adoption, but I think we’ll live. To me,
the benefits (mostly access to lambdas and default methods, tbh) slightly
outweigh the downsides.
+0.1
--
AY
On May 7, 2015 at 19:22:53, Gary Dusbabek (gdusba...@gmail.com) wrote:
+1
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:09
I have no position on this, but I would like to issue a word of caution to
everyone excited to use the new JDK8 features in development to please
discuss their use widely beforehand, and to consider them carefully. Many
of them are not generally useful to us (e.g. LongAdder), and may have
unexpecte
+1
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> We discussed requiring Java 8 previously and decided to remain Java
> 7-compatible, but at the time we were planning to release 3.0 before Java 7
> EOL. Now that 8099 and increased emphasis on QA have delayed us past Java
> 7 EOL, I th
+1
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Jeremiah D Jordan
wrote:
> With Java 7 being EOL for free versions I am +1 on this. If you want to
> stick with 7, you can always keep running 2.1.
>
>> On May 7, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>
>> We discussed requiring Java 8 previously and dec
With Java 7 being EOL for free versions I am +1 on this. If you want to stick
with 7, you can always keep running 2.1.
> On May 7, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> We discussed requiring Java 8 previously and decided to remain Java
> 7-compatible, but at the time we were planning t
+1, from a testing perspective we run dtest and unit tests on hotspot 8 and
openjdk 8 and have seen no problems.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> We discussed requiring Java 8 previously and decided to remain Java
> 7-compatible, but at the time we were planning to releas
10 matches
Mail list logo
