I hadn't opened a ticket or PR but would as soon as I receive some support from the community.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:29 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 to removing it. > Does the build pass if we remove that line? > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:48 PM Marcus Eagan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Not trying to spam the list, just looking to get feedback about the >> goings on in the project and on some of my items before I share my Google >> Doc, which is damning, even of my own work and efforts. >> >> This line and subsequent lines concern me: >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/1d2749295b5378db9f54d603b581d1d9a1e3cc93/lucene/tools/javadoc/java11/package-list#L265 >> >> We should remove Nashorn and eval from our code base. >> >> One could argue that eval should've been removed eight years ago. >> Nashorn should have been removed in 2018 when Oracle announced it w >> <https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/jep-335-deprecate-the-nashorn-javascript-engine>as >> shifting all efforts to GraalVM. Adopting GraalVm, if we feel we need it, >> gives the platform many capabilities and much more security that what is >> offered by Nashorn. Nashorn is not actively maintained anymore to my >> knowledge. >> >> Are there any objections to me removing Nashorn, revisiting adding >> GraalVM if we feel we need it, and totally removing eval from the code >> base. It is already mostly removed thanks to work from Kevin and Jan, I >> believe. I wanted to remove it back in March of 2019, but that's another >> story for a different email thread. >> >> Anyway, please advise. >> >> Best, >> >> Marcus Eagan >> >> -- Marcus Eagan
