[build, core, accumulo, couchbase2, hbase10, orientdb] fixes for jdk9 #712
Conversation
|
okay. it looks like JDK9 support is not present in travis-ci yet. To enable the jvm at all we have to move onto some experimental ubuntu hosts in sudo mode, and then maven is known not to work. So I'd say fixing the current errors are fine, but we can't expect it to consistently work so long as things aren't getting automatically checked. |
|
@busbey JDK 9 isn't GA yet. Still in beta and probably won't be available for a while. Doubt it will be in Travis CI till its GA. Agree that fixing current errors is good. Will review the changes. |
|
I pulled down this PR and tried to run mvn clean package with JDK 9 ea build 113. OrientDB fails with:
Full output of OrientDB section: https://gist.github.com/risdenk/c055c7cc8cf8d6e8fa966866f613c26b Solr fails as well with full output here: https://gist.github.com/risdenk/dbe1e28c962a527f1632b4a5e330cf62. To fix the Solr tests, need to update Solr dependencies to Solr 6 which was release about a week ago. There were a few fixes in Solr 6 for JDK 9. |
|
The OrientDB output looks like we should add the same profile we have for HBase and Accumulo, unless they've since had a release that accounts for JDK9. |
|
bump? |
|
@busbey - I don't know much about OrientDB. I would add the same profile for HBase and Accumulo and worry about updating the OrientDB binding later. |
…xes for jdk9 * in couchbase2 work around ReactiveX/RxJava#3824 * accumulo test hangs, so skip tests * hbase10 and asynchbase test crashes with unknown class version, so skip tests * orientdb tests fail, so skip * core jar-with-deps fails, so keep them broken out fixes brianfrankcooper#704, fixes brianfrankcooper#705
|
rebased, updated for asynchbase module, refactored how skipping under jdk9 works so it just requires a property (since we're up to 4 modules). added orientdb and asynchhbase to the set of modules that skip under jdk9. |
|
bump? |
|
bump? would like to include this before the 0.10.0 release. |
|
Seems reasonable enough to me. Would it help to have someone else also run a build with a jdk9? |
|
yep! trying to build with jdk9 would help see how far off of current ea versions we are. But a +1 on the current incremental changes doesn't necessitate such a build. my main criteria when making the change was making sure jdk7 still worked, since it's our release jdk. I haven't updated my jdk9-ea version since starting back in April. |
|
bump |
|
Bump? |
|
👍 |
risdenk
changed the title
fixes #704, fixes #705