Hi, There are still many things we want to do before an alpha release of NiFi 2.0. I'd not expect it before September at best.
Pierre Le jeu. 6 juil. 2023, 21:15, Monteragi <monter...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi, > > I tried but didn't find any estimates for Nifi 2.0 release. Could someone > please let me know what's the approximate date of 2.0 release? > > Best Regards, > Monty > > > On 2023/06/19 15:55:51 David Handermann wrote: > > 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 <jo...@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 <di...@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 <jo...@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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
