I too vote for option 3.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> I vote for option 3
>
> Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 18:46, Russel Winder a
> écrit :
>
>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
>> > >
>> […]
>> > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do
I vote for option 3
Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 18:46, Russel Winder a écrit :
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
> > >
> […]
> > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do one more release of
> 2.6.0
> > anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announce that it
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
> >
[…]
> How about an option #4. If you are planning to do one more release of 2.6.0
> anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announce that it is the first
> and last 2.6.x release expected.
>
I think this would be a bad idea. We
(Views below are my own, but I think a lot of the other NiFi PMC members
would agree)
I think the Groovy users in the Apache NiFi community would benefit far
more from focusing on 3.0 and dropping 2.6. They're already forced to be on
Java 8 because we require it as a baseline for the last several
As it turns out, I haven't tried the indy artifacts/compilation switches as
yet, just the "classic/standard" jars. I'd suspect though that most benefit
would occur if targeting the GraalVM specifically when generating bytecode.
Cheers, Paul.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:42 PM Winnebeck, Jason <
jas
It’s interesting that it is slower, because I thought the point of it was to
improve performance, especially regarding escape analysis and invokedynamic
instruction? They’ve been publishing some very interesting benchmarks. The AOT
mode is very interesting, too, especially if someone wanted to m
Jon,
On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 12:06 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
>
[…]
> I made the org.jcsp → jcsp change in the imports and all the code seems to
> compile with JDK10. There are some non-CSP problems to fix before I can run
> the tests, but it is looking good.
>
Forgot to say, with Groovy 2.5.0.
Jon,
On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 15:06 +, Kerridge, Jon wrote:
> Russel
>
> I have yet to create a version of the library that is compiled for anything
> other than groovy-2.4.12 and jdk8.
> The former because in other work I am doing I cannot use any version above
> groovy2.4.12 due to a bug I fou
Running numerous scripts on GraalVM worked fine for me and was only
slightly slower in my tests than the standard Oracle JVM. I haven't done
extensive testing though.
As for actually leveraging any special GraalVM capabilities, I am not aware
of any completed work/concrete plans to date.
As for l
