nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: PRs
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:16:37 GMT
Things that make me feel better: The persistence mechanism is very similar
to that of ListHDFS.

https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-hadoop-bundle/nifi-hdfs-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/hadoop/ListHDFS.java#L417

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tags are a great place to mark experimental.  We used to plan for this
> concept outright and make it look at scary and such on the ui.  But
> folks just didn't care.  They used it anyway.  Happy to revisit it but
> for now perhaps just adding a tag of experimental is enough.
>
> If the existing code path is largely untouched then that is certainly
> great for moving the ball forward.  In fairness to Joe S or anyone
> that has to persist internal process state until we offer that as part
> of the framework it is much harder than we want it to be for people.
> Will take a look through the state methods but Payne is probably the
> best at playing the wack a mole edge case game for such things.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, I beat on the the patch for NIFI-1107, and as I suspected, it is
> > awfully low risk for existing flows, but I think I'd need a second
> opinion
> > on how state is kept for resuming uploads. I believe it will work, and it
> > looks like a lot of the edge cases are covered if somehow state is lost
> or
> > corrupted, but I'm not sure if I am comfortable with how it fits
> > architecturally. If someone has cycles, and can peruse the *State methods
> > (getState, persistState, ...) and weigh in, it would accelerate my review
> > significantly.
> >
> > Also, it sure would be great to mark features as experimental!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gilman@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> These tickets [1][2] address the incorrect validation errors we were
> >> seeing for processors that include the Input Required annotation. These
> >> were bugs that slipped through the NIFI-810 the review. Would be good to
> >> include if possible but I understand we need to draw the line somewhere.
> >>
> >> As for NIFI-655, I've been struggling getting an LDAP server stood up
> that
> >> uses 2 way SSL. Hopefully we can get that squared away soon and wrap
> this
> >> one up. :)
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1198
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1203
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> > On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Given the testing to NIFI-1192 and review of NIFI-631 done already
> >> > both are lower risk I think.
> >> >
> >> > NIFI-1107 seems very useful and helpful but we do need to be careful
> >> > given that we know this one is already in use and this is a
> >> > substantive change.
> >> >
> >> > If there are folks that can dig into review/testing of NIFI-1107 that
> >> > would be great.  Waiting for word on NIFI-655 readiness then I think
> >> > we should go cold and just focus on testing an RC.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Joe
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >> Agreed. I know there has already been a good deal of discussion about
> >> >> design on all these.
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No qualms here.  If they look good to go while the work and testing
> >> >>> surrounding NIFI-655 wraps up, they might as well be included.
Would
> >> not
> >> >>> want to delay the release should any of these become protracted
in
> >> terms of
> >> >>> iterations.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> All,
> >> >>>> I was reviewing github PRs and wondering whether anyone objected
to
> >> >>>> slipping a couple that look like they're very close into 0.4.0.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> NIFI-1192 (#131)
> >> >>>> NIFI-631 (#113)
> >> >>>> NIFI-1107 (#192)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I should have some review cycles tonight. Lots of comments
on them
> >> all,
> >> >>> and
> >> >>>> have good "momentum".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Tony
> >> >>>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message