Java 21 officially just launched: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/oracle-releases-java-21-and-extends-support-roadmap-301930953.html
Java 21 official releases available such as: https://www.azul.com/downloads/?version=java-21-lts&package=jdk#zulu As soon as the temurin/azul builds we need are available on Github CI we'll have our build updated. As soon as the docker images we need are ready for the same we'll have nifi-docker updated. We should be Java 21 ready on main/NiFi 2.x and a full 10 years of a supported LTS feature line to work with. Thanks all! Joe On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 9:03 PM Ryan Hendrickson < [email protected]> wrote: > Fantastic progress! Looking forward to the new platform! > Wooohooo! > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 7:17 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Caveat to that - the build works right now as the Java release version in > > the pom is set to 17. So we're building/running Java 21 but the form it > is > > being built in is enforcing Java 17. This is ensuring the Groovy > compiler > > can work. There is not current obvious path/option to build Groovy with > > Java 21 so we likely should focus on removal of any groovy things > requiring > > compilation in our build. Groovy runs on Java 21 just fine but the > eclipse > > compiler as yet does not. Either way we're on track to get those tests > and > > groovy based source out. > > > > Still good progress on getting to NiFi 2.0 and Java 21 (which officially > > releases Sep 19th). > > > > Thanks > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 4:03 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Team > > > > > > Long story short we are now able to build and run NiFi main/2.x line on > > > Java 21! > > > > > > We've made a lot of progress this week on top of all the great work > > > already done for getting to NiFi 2.0 but specifically to this thread of > > > making NiFi 2.0 be based on Java 21. > > > > > > There are a couple PRs outstanding but once they land I'll put up a PR > > for > > > this commit [1] and we will be building with Java 21-ea on the main > line. > > > The full clean build with all tests and all profiles I could find is > now > > > working locally and is also now running in my fork before I put up the > PR > > > [2], [3]. NiFi also runs on Java 21. We did have to make a bunch of > > > updates to all things Groovy and we're reducing/eliminating a lot of > > pieces > > > that are poorly maintained or need fundamentally different > > implementations > > > in Java 21. The toolkit is likely to be removed it seems and we can > > later > > > introduce back specific pieces if/as needed but designed better/more > > easily > > > maintained. > > > > > > What would be ideal is we land a couple more key pieces like ensuring > > > every deprecated component is actually removed and ensuring the > > flow.xml.gz > > > is entirely gone. Then we kick out a NiFi 2.0 M1 release for people to > > > work with. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://github.com/joewitt/nifi/commit/c3d16d949f8153441c64a1f98fd641cf80178f43 > > > [2] https://github.com/joewitt/nifi/actions/runs/6203527626 > > > [3] https://github.com/joewitt/nifi/actions/runs/6203527625 > > > > > > Thanks > > > Joe > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 1:06 PM Pierre Villard < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Templates are already out. Flow.xml being removed should be reviewed > > soon > > >> (PR was rebased today). I'm working on the removal of variables. I > hope > > to > > >> get a PR for this in the next few days. > > >> > > >> Le ven. 15 sept. 2023, 19:22, Joe Witt <[email protected]> a écrit : > > >> > > >> > Timeline - we remain in full blitz mode to get things ready for 2.0. > > No > > >> > clear ETA but we need to be getting it out soon. At least a > milestone > > >> > release of it for people to work with. There is a big change needed > > to > > >> get > > >> > rid of the flow.xml.gz in favor of the json form and that is in > > >> progress. > > >> > I am not sure offhand whether templates got the boot yet. > > >> > > > >> > Latest fun is wrestling our rather messy situation with Groovy in > the > > >> build > > >> > as that seems not ready for Java 21 generally. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:19 AM Ryan Hendrickson < > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I think NiFi 2.x going to Java 21 for all the reasons outlined > > makes a > > >> > lot > > >> > > of sense. > > >> > > > > >> > > Is there a timeline for 2.x? > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:00 AM Pierre Villard < > > >> > > [email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that > > >> would > > >> > > > likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to NiFi 2.0 > super > > >> > quickly > > >> > > > anyway. Being able to bring the latest and greatest in NiFi is > > great > > >> > and > > >> > > > given all of the features announced in Java 21, I imagine a lot > of > > >> > > projects > > >> > > > we depend on will be doing the same. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt <[email protected]> a > > >> écrit : > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Pierre > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > > >> > > > > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption > > >> timeline. > > >> > It > > >> > > > > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > > >> > > > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need > > to > > >> > > bother > > >> > > > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us > to > > >> have > > >> > is > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done > > asap > > >> and > > >> > > if > > >> > > > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > > >> > > > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was > > the > > >> new > > >> > > > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to > leverage > > >> that > > >> > > for > > >> > > > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce > > some > > >> of > > >> > > our > > >> > > > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > > >> > > > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 > > >> brings > > >> > > out > > >> > > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing > > but > > >> > > useful. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > > >> > > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point > of > > >> view > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > terms of install/config/etc.. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're > > >> setting > > >> > > our > > >> > > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line > > >> lives > > >> > > I'd > > >> > > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that > > >> line as > > >> > > > well. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < > > >> > > > [email protected]> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > +1 to requiring java 21. Starting off as "up to date" as > > >> possibly > > >> > > > makes a > > >> > > > > > lot of sense, and some of the new features seem especially > > >> relevant > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > NiFi. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I definitely understand the concerns about organizations > being > > >> > > willing > > >> > > > / > > >> > > > > > able to approve Java 21... But those same organizations > might > > >> also > > >> > be > > >> > > > > > hesitant to move to NiFi 2.0. We will continue to support > java > > >> 17 & > > >> > > > NiFi > > >> > > > > > 1.x for some time, so hopefully those groups will have the > > time > > >> > they > > >> > > > need > > >> > > > > > to get approvals, do evaluations, and upgrade. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Brandon > > >> > > > > > ________________________________ > > >> > > > > > From: Pierre Villard <[email protected]> > > >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > > >> > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21… > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I share the concerns raised by Chris regarding how quickly > > >> users of > > >> > > > NiFi > > >> > > > > > will be able to adopt Java 21. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > While I'm definitely in favor of using the latest and > > greatest, > > >> > > > > especially > > >> > > > > > when it brings to the table such significant features, we > need > > >> to > > >> > be > > >> > > > > > careful as it may significantly delay the adoption of NiFi > 2.0 > > >> in > > >> > big > > >> > > > > > companies where deploying Java 21 will take time. I > > acknowledge > > >> > that > > >> > > > > going > > >> > > > > > from Java 8 to Java 17 is certainly the same effort as going > > >> from > > >> > > Java > > >> > > > 8 > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > Java 21 but how quickly security-sensitive environments will > > >> adopt > > >> > a > > >> > > > new > > >> > > > > > release of Java that is completely new? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > In addition to that, it sounds like we would add a > significant > > >> > rework > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > > > the framework in NiFi 2.0 assuming we adopt Java 21 as the > > >> minimum > > >> > > > > version. > > >> > > > > > Do we think this is going to significantly delay the first > > >> release > > >> > of > > >> > > > > NiFi > > >> > > > > > 2.0? We still have work to do but adding this on top could > > delay > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > release, no? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Finally, the features that Java 21 are bringing sound super > > >> > > interesting > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > > the context of NiFi but do we already have an idea of what > it > > >> will > > >> > > > > improve? > > >> > > > > > is it the user experience, and if so, how will it change? is > > it > > >> the > > >> > > > > > performance, and if so, do we have an idea of how things > will > > >> > > improve? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > Pierre > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Le mer. 6 sept. 2023 à 23:07, Chris Sampson > > >> > > > > > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yeah, I understand the need to move to 21 as a minimum to > > take > > >> > > > > advantage > > >> > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > its features. Hopefully the wider java ecosystem won't be > an > > >> > issue > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > short term. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I just wanted the discussion to be clear about this being > a > > >> > change > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > Java baseline/minimum for NiFi 2.0. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It's a +1 from me. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023, 19:01 Joe Witt, <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Chris > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > My suggestion is rooted in making Java 21 the minimum of > > the > > >> > NiFi > > >> > > > 2.0 > > >> > > > > > > > line. It would not work on Java 17. The reason for > this > > >> is so > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > > leverage the longest duration of a given LTS line while > > also > > >> > > > > benefiting > > >> > > > > > > > from the language improvements that affords. > Maintaining > > >> > > > > compatibility > > >> > > > > > > > with future versions we generally have to do. But > > whatever > > >> the > > >> > > > > minimum > > >> > > > > > > > version we accept dictates which language features we > can > > >> > > leverage. > > >> > > > > So > > >> > > > > > > if > > >> > > > > > > > it is 17 then we can't leverage anything from the 21 > line > > >> for > > >> > > > > example. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > GIven the nature and timelines of LTS I don't really > think > > >> > there > > >> > > is > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > same burn in logic that we'd have all known in the past > > >> before > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > > LTS/STS/etc.. release constructs existed. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:53 AM Chris Sampson > > >> > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > To be clear, is the discussion one of making Java 21 > the > > >> > > minimum > > >> > > > > > > > > requirement for NiFi 2.0.0, or rather NiFi 2.x be > > >> compatible > > >> > > with > > >> > > > > > Java > > >> > > > > > > > 21, > > >> > > > > > > > > while retaining Java 17 as a minimum? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If we moved straight to a Java 21 requirement, will we > > run > > >> > into > > >> > > > > > > > > compatibility issues that delay initial NiFi 2 > release? > > >> Will > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > move > > >> > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > Java 21 mean some organisations delay their migration > to > > >> > NiFi 2 > > >> > > > > > through > > >> > > > > > > > not > > >> > > > > > > > > wanting to move to the latest Java LTS version until > > it's > > >> > had a > > >> > > > > time > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > > "settling" through security/bug patches, etc.? And are > > >> either > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > these > > >> > > > > > > > > sufficient concern to pause Java 21 becoming the > > >> requirement, > > >> > > as > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > > may > > >> > > > > > > > > then need to extend NiFi 1.x maintenance for longer > into > > >> the > > >> > > > > future? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Generally, I'm in favour of moving to "latest and > > >> greatest", > > >> > > > > > > particularly > > >> > > > > > > > > for LTS versions of technologies, but the rate of Java > > >> > version > > >> > > > > > adoption > > >> > > > > > > > > across the community gives me pause. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I certainly see the advantage of new Java features for > > >> NiFi > > >> > in > > >> > > > Java > > >> > > > > > 21, > > >> > > > > > > > > such as the already mentioned virtual threads. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023, 18:34 Mike Thomsen, < > > >> > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > +1 100% > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft < > > >> > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, please. +1 Exactly what Mark said. Virtual > > >> threads > > >> > > have > > >> > > > > > > > potential > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > be extremely impactful to applications like NiFi. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > /Adam > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 7:26 AM Mark Payne < > > >> > > > > [email protected]> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing his up, Joe. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I would definitely be a +1. I think the new > > virtual > > >> > > thread > > >> > > > > > > concept > > >> > > > > > > > > > would > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > have great impact on us. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It would allow us to significantly simplify our > > >> > > scheduling > > >> > > > > > logic, > > >> > > > > > > > > which > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would help with code maintainability > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > but would also make configuration simpler. This > is > > >> one > > >> > of > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > most > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > difficult things for users to configure, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and I would very much welcome the ability to > > >> simplify > > >> > > this. > > >> > > > > It > > >> > > > > > > > would > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > likely also yield better off-heap memory > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > utilization by reducing the number of native > > threads > > >> > > > > necessary. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -Mark > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Joe Witt < > > >> > > > [email protected]> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Team > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought it might be worth relighting this > thread > > >> with > > >> > > > Java > > >> > > > > 21 > > >> > > > > > > GA > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > imminent. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the timing we should give consideration > to > > >> > having > > >> > > > > Java > > >> > > > > > 21 > > >> > > > > > > > as > > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > basis for nifi 2.x to buy maximum time with > LTS > > >> > > > alignment. > > >> > > > > > > There > > >> > > > > > > > > are > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > also > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a couple interesting language features we can > > >> likely > > >> > > take > > >> > > > > > > > advantage > > >> > > > > > > > > > of. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 6:21 AM David > > Handermann < > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Dirk, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for summarizing your findings in the > > >> > referenced > > >> > > > > Jira > > >> > > > > > > > > issues. > > >> > > > > > > > > > It > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> sounds like subsequent discussion of Nashorn > > >> support > > >> > > may > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > better > > >> > > > > > > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > new > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> thread. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> The Spring 6 and Jetty 11 upgrades are going > to > > >> > > require > > >> > > > > > > > > significant > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > work. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> One incremental step in that direction was > > making > > >> > Java > > >> > > > 17 > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > minimum > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> version, and upgrading to Jetty 10 should > also > > >> help > > >> > > move > > >> > > > > > > things > > >> > > > > > > > > > > forward. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although compiling NiFi modules with a > > reference > > >> to > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > > standalone > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Nashorn > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> library may introduce issues, there should be > > >> other > > >> > > > > options > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > referencing > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the library at runtime. That requires custom > > >> class > > >> > > > > loading, > > >> > > > > > > > which > > >> > > > > > > > > > some > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Processors support, so that seems like the > > >> general > > >> > > > > direction > > >> > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > go. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> If you have additional findings, feel free to > > >> start > > >> > a > > >> > > > new > > >> > > > > > > > > developer > > >> > > > > > > > > > > list > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> thread and that may gather additional > feedback. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> David Handermann > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:17 AM Dirk Arends > < > > >> > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Since initially raising concerns about the > > move > > >> to > > >> > > Java > > >> > > > > 17 > > >> > > > > > > > losing > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Nashorn, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I have been investigating the suggestion to > > use > > >> > > Nashorn > > >> > > > > as > > >> > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > > > > standalone > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> package as potential easier alternative to > > >> GraalVM. > > >> > > [1] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> While making some progress, a number of > issues > > >> have > > >> > > > been > > >> > > > > > > > > > encountered > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> which > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I haven't been able to resolve as yet. More > > >> details > > >> > > are > > >> > > > > > > > included > > >> > > > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> relevant JIRA tickets, but summarising: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> - Building NiFi with a recent Nashorn > > dependency > > >> > > leads > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > errors > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "Unsupported class file major version 61" > [2] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> - Building NiFi using Java 17 highlights > > issues > > >> > with > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > current > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Jetty > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> version, which I believe would require an > > >> upgrade > > >> > > from > > >> > > > > > 9.4.51 > > >> > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 11.0.15 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [3] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> - Jetty 11 then requires an upgrade of the > > >> Spring > > >> > > > > Framework > > >> > > > > > > > > > version 5 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 6. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [4] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> The current steps to remove references to > > >> > > "Javascript" > > >> > > > > as a > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > preinstalled > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> scripting language [5] are understandable, > but > > >> it > > >> > > does > > >> > > > > seem > > >> > > > > > > > there > > >> > > > > > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> still > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> quite a bit to do before Nashorn or another > > >> > external > > >> > > > > > > scripting > > >> > > > > > > > > > engine > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> could > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be used. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11700 > > >> > > : > > >> > > > > Java > > >> > > > > > > 17 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Nashorn > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> standalone support > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [2] > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11701 > > >> > > : > > >> > > > > > > Support > > >> > > > > > > > > > > building > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> with > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> version 61 class files > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [3] > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11702 > > >> > > : > > >> > > > > > > Upgrade > > >> > > > > > > > > > Jetty > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> version 11 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [4] > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11703 > > >> > > : > > >> > > > > > > Upgrade > > >> > > > > > > > > > Spring > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Framework to version 6 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [5] > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11713 > > >> > > : > > >> > > > > > Remove > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Deprecated > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ECMAScript Support > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dirk Arends > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
