In a similar vein, at some point we might want to start experimenting with trying to get NiFi to run Graal (without AOT compilation).
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 11:31 PM David Handermann < exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the additional replies, I think the distinction between new > features for the next version and bug fixes for both versions is a helpful > approach. > > Having contributed and backported a number of changes, I have been more > focused on compatibility, but I completely agree that we should take > advantage of new features on the main branch. We have already started doing > this in terms of certain libraries, and more work is in progress. > > Regards, > David Handermann > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:54 PM Mark Bean <mark.o.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was working on a very similar response. Thanks Joe for the clear > > articulation. I agree with this approach 100%. > > > > Adding one additional point, the differentiation of Java 17 in the NiFi > 2.0 > > line may encourage and expedite the migration to a new major release. I > > think we want to get there as soon as possible rather than continue the > > burdensome effort of supporting new main lines of code. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:33 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The views shared thus far are certainly reasonable but I do want to add > > > a different take. > > > > > > The reason we want to do major releases from time to time is so that we > > can > > > take advantage of leaps in the language and frameworks we rely on. To > > that > > > end it would seem unfortunate to not start aggressively taking > advantage > > of > > > that. In particular we've been held to Java 8 standards for at least 7 > > > years. I would advocate we allow and even encourage usage of Java 17 > > > features/syntax to help move forward. > > > > > > The point about backporting is important and I agree the 'easiest' way > is > > > if changes made to main are backportable. Then again we don't really > > need > > > everything to be backportable and for sure that will start happening > less > > > and less. If we're talking about 'bug fixes' then it probably makes > > sense > > > to prefer for now they avoid Java 17 assuming a given fix should target > > > both 2.x and 1.x lines. But if we're talking about new features or > even > > > improvements I think we should be free to move on to Java 17 > > > idioms/benefits. If a contrib does this then it just won't go to the > 1.x > > > line. This atrophy is natural/ok I think and lets us give the 2.x line > > the > > > attention/growth it deserves. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 2:19 PM David Handermann < > > > exceptionfact...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising the question. Following Matt's comments, I > recommend > > > > minimizing use of Java 17 features to make it easier to backport > > changes > > > > for now. > > > > > > > > Incremental adjustments can be done when backporting, but it requires > > the > > > > author and reviewer to pay careful attention since the GitHub > automated > > > > builds for the main branch run on Java 17. > > > > > > > > As Matt recommended, the alternative is to provide separate pull > > requests > > > > for the main and support branches. > > > > > > > > We already have a few Java 11 and 17 references on the main branch > for > > > > things like List.of(), and most of these are easy to adjust when > > > > backporting, but they do require careful attention. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > David Handermann > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:04 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In my opinion that's ok, but I think it would be helpful if a PR is > > > > > going to be backported to support/nifi-1.x that the PR author > > provides > > > > > two PRs, one against main with Java 17 features and one against > > > > > support/nifi-1.x with Java 8 features. That being said, allowing > Java > > > > > 17 features may make maintenance tougher while there's an active > 1.x > > > > > branch. Maybe we should wait until we only support NiFi 2.x? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:59 PM Mike Thomsen < > mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we're standardizing on 17, we're free and clear to use Java > > 17 > > > > > > features, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
