I also (+1nb) support a proposal to deprecate JavaScript UDFs; to offer an interface for those who would like to supply a UDF implementation; and to extract/remove our current implementation.
JDK17 support seems like a much higher priority than in-tree JS UDFs. — Scott > On Jan 18, 2022, at 8:30 AM, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > With the work to add Java 17 support for Cassandra, a new question around the > future of UDF was raised. The scripted UDF was using Nashorn which is no > longer packaged with the JDK. There are options to add new dependencies to > Graal JS for example but it seems people are not sure that it is worth it. > Please check the discussion on CASSANDRA-16895. > > The following suggestion was made by Marcus and supported by other PMC > members - "I think we should deprecate scripted UDFs now and drop them from > the next major, but possibly provide hooks for people to write their own UDF > "engines" and break out the current javascript implementation in to its own > repository (but not ship it with Cassandra)." > > As a result we decided to engage with our users and created a Twitter survey. > Results below: > We would love to understand how you use ApacheCassandra UDFs and UDAs. > 32 people responded as follows: > We do not use them - 75% > We only use Java UDFs - 22% > We only use JS UDFs - 0% > We use Java and JS UDFs - 3% > We also received feedback on LinkedIN on the topic - > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6886728406742970369?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A6886728406742970369%2C6886793921020608512%29&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A6886728406742970369%2C6887421509485248512%29 > > Thoughts? > > Best regards, > Ekaterina
