I believe it is because in both ExecuteScript and ExecuteGroovyScript you can do "regular" groovy, but EGS has extra built-ins such as easy access to controller services, Groovy SQL stuff, etc, and we could keep building it out. But IMO we'd have to port the rest of the scripted components (ScriptedReader/Writer, etc.) over to the Groovy bundle and make sure there's a drop-in replacement in the Python stuff before we'd want to deprecate the scripted bundle.
On the JRuby front, is that something you use actively? This question is for you and the entire community of course. Regards, Matt On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 7:12 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If we deprecate ExecuteScript, I think we need to have groovyx be ready to > function as a drop-in replacement if it's not there already. > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 9:21 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > IIRC the removal of these engines was mostly due to lack of use or at > > least the perception thereof. If JRuby is being used by the community > > actively, I'm happy to revisit that discussion. Luaj's JSR-223 > > interface left something to be desired, but JRuby just needed a system > > variable set or something like that. > > > > For the groovyx bundle, because it is Groovy-specific I tend to think > > we could make better use of that than ExecuteScript, especially if we > > do get rid of all the engines. We have a Groovy-specific processor, a > > "real" Python SDK, and no more Nashorn. Perhaps we move all the > > scripted components to the Groovy bundle, although I believe some > > folks still make use of Jython for these. Of course if we reinstate > > JRuby for ExecuteScript it's probably best to keep things the way they > > are, or create a jruby bundle. The original scripting bundle was > > aiming to support several engines, but if it turns out only one or two > > will be useful, it may not be worth shoehorning all that JSR-223 logic > > when engine-specific components could be simpler, more easily > > maintained, and allow for the idioms of the language to be better used > > (as is done in the groovyx bundle). > > > > Just my two cents, looking forward to everyone's thoughts! > > > > - Matt > > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 8:31 PM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11646 > > > > > > I get the removal of Lua, but not the removal of JRuby. It's a clean > > > reimplementation of Ruby native to the JVM and AFAICT is pound for pound > > as > > > actively maintained as Groovy. > > > > > > Also, at this point, does it make sense to even keep the groovyx bundle > > > rather than deprecate it for 2.X? > >
