Team, With the merge of PR 7397 [1] for NIFI-11717 [2], Java 17.0.6 is the minimum required version for building the main branch.
There are still several remaining deprecated features that need to be removed for NiFi 2.0, and there are still areas of the system that need to be reviewed for additional cleanup. The Deprecated Components and Features page [3] lists the progress thus far. There is still opportunity to introduce new features and improvements in parallel with the technical debt reduction focus, and this could include evaluating a better strategy for supporting additional scripting engines. We should review the status of things after addressing some of the larger outstanding deprecation removals. Regards, David Handermann [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/7397 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11717 [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Deprecated+Components+and+Features On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 10:34 PM Ryan Hendrickson < ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
