Hi JL, It’s worth discussing/considering changes such as this periodically, so thanks for bringing it up.
Personally, I would be hesitant to make such a large change. While it would likely be a net-positive for the NiFi image itself, I think it would impact a number of community members that have Dockerfile’s that use our image as a starting point. A GitHub code search [1] seems to confirm this, showing >100 Dockerfiles that contain “FROM apache/nifi*” For NiFi 1.x, I think the best we could do is leverage tagging to offer image variants that differ in layers we build upon, for example OS or JDK/JRE variants. This seems to be a popular method, for example, Apache Tomcat offers a multiple of combinations of version, JDK, and OS [2]. So if it would be beneficial, we could add official images for other jdk versions indicated by tags, for example apache/nifi:1.13.2, apache/nifi:1.13.2-jre11, etc. I believe this was part of the plan for the (empty) apache/nifi-container code repository [3]. I think the intention was always to build out a richer set of diverse container images based on files in this repository, which could be maintained/released decoupled from the NiFi source code itself. With so many in the community running containerized NiFi, perhaps it's worth reviving that discussion to see what, if anything, would be most valuable to add to our container offerings. For NiFi 2 we can and should definitely consider what changes we want to make to our “default” base image, including which JRE. [1] https://github.com/search?l=&q=%22FROM+apache%2Fnifi%22+language%3ADockerfile&type=code <https://github.com/search?l=&q=%22FROM+apache/nifi%22+language:Dockerfile&type=code> [2] https://hub.docker.com/_/tomcat?tab=description <https://hub.docker.com/_/tomcat?tab=description> [3] https://github.com/apache/nifi-container <https://github.com/apache/nifi-container> Thanks! Kevin > On Mar 26, 2021, at 07:49, José Luis Pedrosa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All > > I see that the docker images generated are based "openjdk:8-jre" should we > (I volunteer) to update them to "11-jre"? as both versions are supported (8 > and 11) I don't see any reason why not, and will be more future proof. > > Any opinions? > > JL > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:59 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mark >> >> That we can do with a NiFi 2 release for sure. Before then it isnt great. >> >> Oracles JVM is not what I see mostly in the wild any longer and we do see a >> ton of Java 8 usage still. >> >> We can and should drop Java 8 but itll be important to do it when we cut a >> lot of crud out as well. >> >> Thanks >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 6:03 AM Mark Bean <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'd like to discuss migrating to Java 11 as the minimum required Java >>> version for NiFi. We've been supporting both Java 8 and Java 11 for some >>> time now. There is increased overhead in verifying builds with two >>> different versions. There are some features and syntax available in Java >> 11 >>> which cannot be used in order for NiFi to remain compatible with both >>> versions. Java 8 premier support (Oracle) runs out in one year. Java 17 - >>> the next LTS version - is due out later this year. >>> >>> There should be plenty of lead time for users to prepare for the >>> transition. So I wanted to start the discussion well in advance of when >> we >>> discontinue Java 8 support. And, logistically how do we best inform the >>> community of upcoming changes like this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mark >>> >>
