Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
t; > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:19 AM Ryan Hendrickson < > > >> > ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I think NiFi 2.x going to Java 21 for all the reasons outlined > > makes a > > >> > lot > > >> > > of sense. > > >> > > > > >> > > Is there a timeline for 2.x? > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:00 AM Pierre Villard < > > >> > > pierre.villard...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that > > >> would > > >> > > > likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to NiFi 2.0 > super > > >> > quickly > > >> > > > anyway. Being able to bring the latest and greatest in NiFi is > > great > > >> > and > > >> > > > given all of the features announced in Java 21, I imagine a lot > of > > >> > > projects > > >> > > > we depend on will be doing the same. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt a > > >> écrit : > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Pierre > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > > >> > > > > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption > > >> timeline. > > >> > It > > >> > > > > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > > >> > > > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need > > to > > >> > > bother > > >> > > > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us > to > > >> have > > >> > is > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done > > asap > > >> and > > >> > > if > > >> > > > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > > >> > > > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was > > the > > >> new > > >> > > > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to > leverage > > >> that > > >> > > for > > >> > > > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce > > some > > >> of > > >> > > our > > >> > > > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > > >> > > > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 > > >> brings > > >> > > out > > >> > > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing > > but > > >> > > useful. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > > >> > > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point > of > > >> view > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > terms of install/config/etc.. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're > > >> setting > > >> > > our > > >> > > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line > > >> lives > > >> > > I'd > > >> > > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that > > >> line as > > >> > > > well. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
> >> > > > > >> > > > Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt a > >> écrit : > >> > > > > >> > > > > Pierre > >> > > > > > >> > > > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > >> > > > > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption > >> timeline. > >> > It > >> > > > > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > >> > > > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need > to > >> > > bother > >> > > > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to > >> have > >> > is > >> > > > the > >> > > > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done > asap > >> and > >> > > if > >> > > > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > >> > > > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was > the > >> new > >> > > > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage > >> that > >> > > for > >> > > > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce > some > >> of > >> > > our > >> > > > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > >> > > > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 > >> brings > >> > > out > >> > > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing > but > >> > > useful. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > >> > > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of > >> view > >> > > in > >> > > > > terms of install/config/etc.. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're > >> setting > >> > > our > >> > > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line > >> lives > >> > > I'd > >> > > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that > >> line as > >> > > > well. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < > >> > > > brandon.devr...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > +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 > >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > >> > > > > > To: dev@nifi.apache
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
>> > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? >> > > > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need to >> > > bother >> > > > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to >> have >> > is >> > > > the >> > > > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done asap >> and >> > > if >> > > > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. >> > > > > >> > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? >> > > > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was the >> new >> > > > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage >> that >> > > for >> > > > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce some >> of >> > > our >> > > > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. >> > > > > >> > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? >> > > > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 >> brings >> > > out >> > > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but >> > > useful. >> > > > > >> > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? >> > > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of >> view >> > > in >> > > > > terms of install/config/etc.. >> > > > > >> > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're >> setting >> > > our >> > > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line >> lives >> > > I'd >> > > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that >> line as >> > > > well. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < >> > > > brandon.devr...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +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 >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM >> > > > > > To: 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 >>
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
lysis found with googling that Java 21 > brings > > > out > > > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but > > > useful. > > > > > > > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > > > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of > view > > > in > > > > > terms of install/config/etc.. > > > > > > > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're > setting > > > our > > > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line > lives > > > I'd > > > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that line > as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < > > > > brandon.devr...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +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 > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > > > > > > To: 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 > > > >
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
Templates are already out. Flow.xml being removed should be reviewed soon (PR was rebased today). I'm working on the removal of variables. I hope to get a PR for this in the next few days. Le ven. 15 sept. 2023, 19:22, Joe Witt a écrit : > Timeline - we remain in full blitz mode to get things ready for 2.0. No > clear ETA but we need to be getting it out soon. At least a milestone > release of it for people to work with. There is a big change needed to get > rid of the flow.xml.gz in favor of the json form and that is in progress. > I am not sure offhand whether templates got the boot yet. > > Latest fun is wrestling our rather messy situation with Groovy in the build > as that seems not ready for Java 21 generally. > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:19 AM Ryan Hendrickson < > ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think NiFi 2.x going to Java 21 for all the reasons outlined makes a > lot > > of sense. > > > > Is there a timeline for 2.x? > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:00 AM Pierre Villard < > > pierre.villard...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that would > > > likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to NiFi 2.0 super > quickly > > > anyway. Being able to bring the latest and greatest in NiFi is great > and > > > given all of the features announced in Java 21, I imagine a lot of > > projects > > > we depend on will be doing the same. > > > > > > Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt a écrit : > > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > > > > > > > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > > > > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption timeline. > It > > > > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > > > > > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > > > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need to > > bother > > > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to have > is > > > the > > > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done asap and > > if > > > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > > > > > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > > > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was the new > > > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage that > > for > > > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce some of > > our > > > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > > > > > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > > > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 brings > > out > > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but > > useful. > > > > > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of view > > in > > > > terms of install/config/etc.. > > > > > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're setting > > our > > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line lives > > I'd > > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that line as > > > well. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < > > > brandon.devr...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +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. > > >
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
Timeline - we remain in full blitz mode to get things ready for 2.0. No clear ETA but we need to be getting it out soon. At least a milestone release of it for people to work with. There is a big change needed to get rid of the flow.xml.gz in favor of the json form and that is in progress. I am not sure offhand whether templates got the boot yet. Latest fun is wrestling our rather messy situation with Groovy in the build as that seems not ready for Java 21 generally. On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:19 AM Ryan Hendrickson < ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think NiFi 2.x going to Java 21 for all the reasons outlined makes a lot > of sense. > > Is there a timeline for 2.x? > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:00 AM Pierre Villard < > pierre.villard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that would > > likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to NiFi 2.0 super quickly > > anyway. Being able to bring the latest and greatest in NiFi is great and > > given all of the features announced in Java 21, I imagine a lot of > projects > > we depend on will be doing the same. > > > > Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt a écrit : > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > > > > > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > > > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption timeline. It > > > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > > > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need to > bother > > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to have is > > the > > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done asap and > if > > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > > > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was the new > > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage that > for > > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce some of > our > > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > > > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 brings > out > > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but > useful. > > > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of view > in > > > terms of install/config/etc.. > > > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're setting > our > > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line lives > I'd > > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that line as > > well. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < > > brandon.devr...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +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 > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > > > > To: 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 > > > >
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
I think NiFi 2.x going to Java 21 for all the reasons outlined makes a lot of sense. Is there a timeline for 2.x? On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:00 AM Pierre Villard wrote: > Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that would > likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to NiFi 2.0 super quickly > anyway. Being able to bring the latest and greatest in NiFi is great and > given all of the features announced in Java 21, I imagine a lot of projects > we depend on will be doing the same. > > Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt a écrit : > > > Pierre > > > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > > > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption timeline. It > > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > > > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need to bother > > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to have is > the > > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done asap and if > > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > > > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was the new > > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage that for > > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce some of our > > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > > > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 brings out > > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but useful. > > > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of view in > > terms of install/config/etc.. > > > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're setting our > > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line lives I'd > > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that line as > well. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries < > brandon.devr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +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 > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > > > To: 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
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that would likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to NiFi 2.0 super quickly anyway. Being able to bring the latest and greatest in NiFi is great and given all of the features announced in Java 21, I imagine a lot of projects we depend on will be doing the same. Le jeu. 7 sept. 2023 à 19:36, Joe Witt a écrit : > Pierre > > A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: > > Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? > I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption timeline. It > will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. > > Will this delay NiFi 2.0? > If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need to bother > with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to have is the > option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done asap and if > this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. > > Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? > Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was the new > threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage that for > the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce some of our > heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. > > Performance benefits of Java 21? > It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 brings out > of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but useful. > > User experience otherwise with Java 21? > I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of view in > terms of install/config/etc.. > > My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're setting our > new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line lives I'd > like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that line as well. > > Thanks > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries > wrote: > > > +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 > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > > To: 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 > > 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 202
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
Pierre A few concerns you raised so want to address my view on each: Will users be able to adopt Java 21 fast enough? I share Brandon's view on that in terms of their adoption timeline. It will likely align well with NiFi 2.0 itself in my estimation. Will this delay NiFi 2.0? If it would then I'd not be supportive. I don't think we need to bother with adopting any of the features now. What I would like us to have is the option to adopt them as we progress. We should get 2.0 done asap and if this added delay then I'd be way less interested in this idea. Feature benefits of 21 and what will that bring? Mark spoke well to the key one that stood out to me which was the new threading model available. It would be awfully nice to leverage that for the efficiency it represents and especially if it can reduce some of our heap usage which is valuable in cloud/shared compute contexts. Performance benefits of Java 21? It appears from some analysis found with googling that Java 21 brings out of the box 4-5% performance increases generally. Not amazing but useful. User experience otherwise with Java 21? I believe it would be consistent with Java 17 for their point of view in terms of install/config/etc.. My motivation for this is fairly pure honestly. Since we're setting our new minimum bar that lives for as long as the 2.x release line lives I'd like to set it at the current LTS available when we ship that line as well. Thanks On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:22 AM Brandon DeVries wrote: > +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 > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM > To: 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 > 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, 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 > > &g
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
+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 Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 6:15:58 AM To: 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 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, 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 > > 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, > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 100% > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, please. +1 Exactly what Mark said. Virtual threads have > > potential > > > to > > > > &
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 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, 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 > > 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, > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 100% > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft 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 > > > 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 > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Team > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought it might be worth relighting this thread with Java 21 > GA > > > > > > imminent. > > > > > > > Given the timing we should give
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
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, 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 > 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, wrote: > > > > > +1 100% > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft 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 > > 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 > 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
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
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 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, wrote: > > > +1 100% > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft 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 > 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 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
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
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, wrote: > +1 100% > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft 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 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 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]
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
+1 100% On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Adam Taft 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 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 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 > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
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 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 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 > > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
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 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 >> 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 >>> >>
Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…
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 > 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 > > >
