+1 to requiring java 21. Starting off as "up to date" as possibly makes a lot of sense, and some of the new features seem especially relevant to NiFi.
I definitely understand the concerns about organizations being willing / able to approve Java 21... But those same organizations might also be hesitant to move to NiFi 2.0. We will continue to support java 17 & NiFi 1.x for some time, so hopefully those groups will have the time they need to get approvals, do evaluations, and upgrade. Brandon ________________________________ From: Pierre Villard <pierre.villard...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM To: dev@nifi.apache.org <dev@nifi.apache.org> Subject: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21… Hi all, I share the concerns raised by Chris regarding how quickly users of NiFi will be able to adopt Java 21. While I'm definitely in favor of using the latest and greatest, especially when it brings to the table such significant features, we need to be careful as it may significantly delay the adoption of NiFi 2.0 in big companies where deploying Java 21 will take time. I acknowledge that going from Java 8 to Java 17 is certainly the same effort as going from Java 8 to Java 21 but how quickly security-sensitive environments will adopt a new release of Java that is completely new? In addition to that, it sounds like we would add a significant rework of the framework in NiFi 2.0 assuming we adopt Java 21 as the minimum version. Do we think this is going to significantly delay the first release of NiFi 2.0? We still have work to do but adding this on top could delay the release, no? Finally, the features that Java 21 are bringing sound super interesting in the context of NiFi but do we already have an idea of what it will improve? is it the user experience, and if so, how will it change? is it the performance, and if so, do we have an idea of how things will improve? Thanks, Pierre Le mer. 6 sept. 2023 à 23:07, Chris Sampson <chris.samp...@naimuri.com.invalid> a écrit : > Yeah, I understand the need to move to 21 as a minimum to take advantage of > its features. Hopefully the wider java ecosystem won't be an issue in the > short term. > > I just wanted the discussion to be clear about this being a change to the > Java baseline/minimum for NiFi 2.0. > > It's a +1 from me. > > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023, 19:01 Joe Witt, <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Chris > > > > My suggestion is rooted in making Java 21 the minimum of the NiFi 2.0 > > line. It would not work on Java 17. The reason for this is so that we > can > > leverage the longest duration of a given LTS line while also benefiting > > from the language improvements that affords. Maintaining compatibility > > with future versions we generally have to do. But whatever the minimum > > version we accept dictates which language features we can leverage. So > if > > it is 17 then we can't leverage anything from the 21 line for example. > > > > GIven the nature and timelines of LTS I don't really think there is the > > same burn in logic that we'd have all known in the past before the > > LTS/STS/etc.. release constructs existed. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:53 AM Chris Sampson > > <chris.samp...@naimuri.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > To be clear, is the discussion one of making Java 21 the minimum > > > requirement for NiFi 2.0.0, or rather NiFi 2.x be compatible with Java > > 21, > > > while retaining Java 17 as a minimum? > > > > > > If we moved straight to a Java 21 requirement, will we run into > > > compatibility issues that delay initial NiFi 2 release? Will the move > to > > > Java 21 mean some organisations delay their migration to NiFi 2 through > > not > > > wanting to move to the latest Java LTS version until it's had a time > for > > > "settling" through security/bug patches, etc.? And are either of these > > > sufficient concern to pause Java 21 becoming the requirement, as we may > > > then need to extend NiFi 1.x maintenance for longer into the future? > > > > > > Generally, I'm in favour of moving to "latest and greatest", > particularly > > > for LTS versions of technologies, but the rate of Java version adoption > > > across the community gives me pause. > > > > > > I certainly see the advantage of new Java features for NiFi in Java 21, > > > such as the already mentioned virtual threads. > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023, 18:34 Mike Thomsen, <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 100% > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, please. +1 Exactly what Mark said. Virtual threads have > > potential > > > to > > > > > be extremely impactful to applications like NiFi. > > > > > > > > > > /Adam > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 7:26 AM Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing his up, Joe. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would definitely be a +1. I think the new virtual thread > concept > > > > would > > > > > > have great impact on us. > > > > > > It would allow us to significantly simplify our scheduling logic, > > > which > > > > > > would help with code maintainability > > > > > > but would also make configuration simpler. This is one of the > most > > > > > > difficult things for users to configure, > > > > > > and I would very much welcome the ability to simplify this. It > > would > > > > > > likely also yield better off-heap memory > > > > > > utilization by reducing the number of native threads necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Team > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought it might be worth relighting this thread with Java 21 > GA > > > > > > imminent. > > > > > > > Given the timing we should give consideration to having Java 21 > > as > > > > the > > > > > > > basis for nifi 2.x to buy maximum time with LTS alignment. > There > > > are > > > > > > also > > > > > > > a couple interesting language features we can likely take > > advantage > > > > of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 6:21 AM David Handermann < > > > > > > > exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Dirk, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks for summarizing your findings in the referenced Jira > > > issues. > > > > It > > > > > > >> sounds like subsequent discussion of Nashorn support may be > > better > > > > on > > > > > a > > > > > > new > > > > > > >> thread. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The Spring 6 and Jetty 11 upgrades are going to require > > > significant > > > > > > work. > > > > > > >> One incremental step in that direction was making Java 17 the > > > > minimum > > > > > > >> version, and upgrading to Jetty 10 should also help move > things > > > > > forward. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Although compiling NiFi modules with a reference to the > > standalone > > > > > > Nashorn > > > > > > >> library may introduce issues, there should be other options > for > > > > > > referencing > > > > > > >> the library at runtime. That requires custom class loading, > > which > > > > some > > > > > > >> Processors support, so that seems like the general direction > to > > > go. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If you have additional findings, feel free to start a new > > > developer > > > > > list > > > > > > >> thread and that may gather additional feedback. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > >> David Handermann > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:17 AM Dirk Arends < > > > > > dirk.are...@fontis.com.au > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Since initially raising concerns about the move to Java 17 > > losing > > > > > > >> Nashorn, > > > > > > >>> I have been investigating the suggestion to use Nashorn as a > > > > > standalone > > > > > > >>> package as potential easier alternative to GraalVM. [1] > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> While making some progress, a number of issues have been > > > > encountered > > > > > > >> which > > > > > > >>> I haven't been able to resolve as yet. More details are > > included > > > in > > > > > > >>> relevant JIRA tickets, but summarising: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> - Building NiFi with a recent Nashorn dependency leads to > > errors > > > > > > >>> "Unsupported class file major version 61" [2] > > > > > > >>> - Building NiFi using Java 17 highlights issues with the > > current > > > > > Jetty > > > > > > >>> version, which I believe would require an upgrade from 9.4.51 > > to > > > > > > 11.0.15 > > > > > > >>> [3] > > > > > > >>> - Jetty 11 then requires an upgrade of the Spring Framework > > > > version 5 > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> 6. > > > > > > >>> [4] > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The current steps to remove references to "Javascript" as a > > > > > > preinstalled > > > > > > >>> scripting language [5] are understandable, but it does seem > > there > > > > is > > > > > > >> still > > > > > > >>> quite a bit to do before Nashorn or another external > scripting > > > > engine > > > > > > >> could > > > > > > >>> be used. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11700: Java > 17 > > > > > Nashorn > > > > > > >>> standalone support > > > > > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11701: > Support > > > > > building > > > > > > >>> with > > > > > > >>> version 61 class files > > > > > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11702: > Upgrade > > > > Jetty > > > > > to > > > > > > >>> version 11 > > > > > > >>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11703: > Upgrade > > > > Spring > > > > > > >>> Framework to version 6 > > > > > > >>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-11713: Remove > > > > > > Deprecated > > > > > > >>> ECMAScript Support > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > > > >>> Dirk Arends > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
