Re: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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 a écrit : > Hi, > > I tried but didn't find any estimates for Nifi 2.0 release. Could someone > please let me know

RE: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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 >

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

With those changes, the Contributor Guide , will need to be updated specifically the 'Supported Versions' and the 'Minimum Required Versions' sections. In addition in the Apache NiFi Development Quickstart

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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 wrote: > Team, > > Looking like we will update the NiFi 2.0 goals to be

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

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

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

will land us back in the same situation we were in with 8 EOL From: Pierre Villard Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:10:47 PM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17... Hey Joe, I'd recommend doing the move right now and say that NiFi 2.0

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:10:47 PM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17... > > Hey Joe, > > I'd recommend doing the move right now and say that NiFi 2.0 requires Java > 17. And we would focus on Java 21 with NiFi 3.0. > I hones

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:10:47 PM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17... Hey Joe, I'd recommend doing the move right now and say that NiFi 2.0 requires Java 17. And we would focus on Java 21 with NiFi 3.0. I honestly don't see any value in absolutely

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

Hey Joe, I'd recommend doing the move right now and say that NiFi 2.0 requires Java 17. And we would focus on Java 21 with NiFi 3.0. I honestly don't see any value in absolutely keeping support for Java 11 right now. Pierre Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 19:22, Joe Witt a écrit : > Team, > > We've