The major issue for our deployments would be the removal of Nashorn as well.
Would GraalVM or an alternative be considered as a part of an initial NiFi 2.0 release? Thanks, Ryan On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 12:38 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Team, > > Looking like we will update the NiFi 2.0 goals to be based on Java 17 > instead of 11. > > The noted concern around Java removing Nashorn in 11/17 we will need to > identify an alternative plan for regardless and seems like David's proposal > would do the trick. > > Let's give this thread a few more days and if still seems consensus is > present lets just assume lazy consensus and update the NiFi 2.0 goals and > make it happen. > > Thanks > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:46 AM David Handermann < > exceptionfact...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I agree that moving forward with Java 17 as the minimum for NiFi 2.0 is > the > > best approach given the extended lifecycle of support for Java 17. > > > > With the removal of a number of legacy components, the current main > branch > > is in a much better position to make Java 17 the minimum. > > > > The deprecation and removal of Nashorn from the JDK is worth > highlighting, > > but it should not be a blocker for moving to Java 17. In this case, NiFi > is > > reflecting the deprecation of Nashorn that already exists in Java 11. I > > have submitted a PR for NIFI-11630 to mark ECMAScript as deprecated for > the > > support branch in subsequent version 1 releases. > > > > With that background, there is ongoing maintenance of the Nashorn engine > as > > an external library, in addition to the GraalVM solution. However, this > is > > a good opportunity to take a different approach to scripting engine > > integration. For maintenance and security purposes, it would be much > better > > to reduce the number of bundled scripting engines and make it easier to > > bring your own. The current scripting bundle is around 100 MB, which is a > > lot of weight for languages and solutions that do not apply across the > > board. Providing an alternative that makes it easier to bring in a script > > engine library should provide a better solution for the future. This also > > should not be a blocker for an initial NiFi 2.0, but it is worth > > highlighting given the general interest in scripted components. > > > > Regards, > > David Handermann > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, 11:38 PM Dirk Arends <dirk.are...@fontis.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > > Who will be seriously impacted by the removal of Java 11 and what was > > > your plan for upgrading to Java 17? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > I would support moving the minimum Java version to 17 if it wasn’t for > > the > > > fact that Nashorn will be removed. Nashorn is already deprecated in > Java > > > 11, and was then fully removed in Java 15. I understand GraalVM is > > intended > > > to be its successor, however this has not yet been integrated into NiFi > > and > > > I’ve been unable to satisfactorily integrate it myself to date. > > > > > > In my NiFi usage, I make heavy use of the JavaScript engine in > > > ExecuteScript and InvokeScriptedProcessor processors. To take advantage > > of > > > GraalVM supporting later ECMAScript versions than Nashorn, I have been > > > attempting to use GraalVM as the JavaScript Engine for NiFi with > limited > > > success. > > > > > > Further details have been provided in JIRA ticket NIFI-6229 [1] and I’d > > > welcome any assistance in trying to finalise GraalVM support, but > > otherwise > > > I’d consider the loss of Nashorn to be a potential blocker to adopting > > Java > > > 17. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-6229 > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Dirk Arends > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 03:23, Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > We've discussed in the past having NiFi 2.0 move from Java 8 to Java > 11 > > > as > > > > the required minimum while also working on Java 17. > > > > > > > > As we move on in time though we are now 4 months (Sept) from. Java 11 > > > > openJDK going end of support. Meanwhile, the Spring 5.x line goes > end > > of > > > > support as of next year and Spring 6.x requires Java 17. Also Java > 21 > > > > comes out in Sept as well and is already the next LTS release. > > > > > > > > I am increasingly of the view that we should seriously > discuss/consider > > > > moving to Java 17 as our basis for NiFi 2.0 as otherwise it basically > > > means > > > > we'll be forced to move to NiFi 3.0 quite quickly. > > > > > > > > We already know we can build and run on Java 17 so we're good there. > > > We'll > > > > soon want to do the same for Java 21 ... and the more 'old stuff' we > > hold > > > > on to the harder it is. > > > > > > > > Who will be seriously impacted by the removal of Java 11 and what was > > > your > > > > plan for upgrading to Java 17? > > > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- > > > Dirk Arends > > > > > >
