New candidate JEP: 335: Deprecate the Nashorn JavaScript Engine

[Jim Laskey]

I think this is an excellent outcome. Thank you Attila.

I will revise JEP 335 accordingly.

Cheers,

— Jim



> On Jun 18, 2018, at 12:07 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 
> 2018/6/15 4:40:47 -0700, Attila Szegedi <szegedia at gmail.com>:
>> On 2018. Jun 12., at 16:55, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> […]
>>> If a set of credible developers expresses a clear desire to maintain
>>> Nashorn after JDK 11 then all of us who work on this code base will find
>>> a way to make that happen.  Maybe Nashorn stays in the JDK, or maybe it’s
>>> removed from the JDK and maintained in some other OpenJDK Project and
>>> published to Maven Central, or maybe some completely different approach
>>> is taken.  Exactly what happens depends, mostly, on who shows up.
>>> 
>>> So ... any takers?
>> 
>> I have expressed previously that I am willing to keep maintaining
>> Dynalink, and that I believe it needs to stay in the JDK in order to
>> be effective. John Rose seemed to agree in an earlier reply in this
>> thread.
> 
> As the creator of Dynalink you’re obviously qualified to take this on,
> so thanks for volunteering!  I agree that much of Dynalink’s value rests
> in its continued availability in the JDK.
> 
> Jim -- what do you think?
> 
>> It’d be great if we could conceptually unbundle Dynalink from Nashorn
>> for the purpose of this discussion. (For historical reasons, its
>> source code is colocated with Nashorn's, but it can be easily moved
>> elsewhere and there’s no technical reason for keeping it there.)
> 
> As Alan noted, Dynalink is already in its own module, so this isn’t an
> issue.
> 
> - Mark