Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Overriding javaHome in launcher-custom.yml doesn't work #79

Open
iamdanfox opened this issue Feb 27, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Overriding javaHome in launcher-custom.yml doesn't work #79

iamdanfox opened this issue Feb 27, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@iamdanfox
Copy link
Contributor

What happened?

As part of the Java8 -> Java11 migration, we've advised people that if anything goes wrong in prod you can just add javaHome: $JAVA_8_HOME to your launcher-custom.yml and restart to get back to the old behaviour.

What did you want to happen?

Unfortunately, go-java-launcher seems to ignore this field (and doesn't actually fail).

@nathklei
Copy link

@iamdanfox I hit this exact issue just now trying to go the other direction - take a gotham service with java 8 in its launcher-static and run it on java 11 to test.

Is there a workaround? What I'm going to try next is just edit the launcher-static in my dist but that seems a bit hacky.

@iamdanfox
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nathklei I remember asking around about this and I think the consensus was that it was actually an intentional decision originally to make the choice of java version a product-owner decision instead of an operator-decision.

The risk of making it an operator decision is that a product teams might get a deluge of support tickets from deployments who are using the product on a different java version than it was intended to run on (or possibly even tested on).

Changing this would just involve adding some extra info the launcher custom type and changing how they're merged, but I think we'd want to acknowledge the risk in long tail of support problems before doing this!

@nathklei
Copy link

Thanks, I understand the rationale and have a workaround for my own ad hoc initial test. It does definitely add some rollout risk for our bigger internal services should we encounter issues, but I think a downgrade is a fine alternative. Will note this for planning.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants