nifi-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org>
Subject Re: flowfile through invokehttp put
Date Thu, 16 May 2019 19:31:55 GMT
Bryan’s comments are definitely helpful around the additional work separation, but revisiting
your initial question, did you try using Site To Site through the proxy? Koji Kawamura has
done a lot of work on this [1][2] and I believe it’s pretty successful. There are example
configurations and diagrams in the Admin Guide [3][4][5]. 

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Support+HTTP%28S%29+as+a+transport+mechanism+for+Site-to-Site#SupportHTTP(S)asatransportmechanismforSite-to-Site-ToStandaloneNiFi:HTTPusingProxy
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Support+HTTP(S)+as+a+transport+mechanism+for+Site-to-Site#SupportHTTP(S)asatransportmechanismforSite-to-Site-ToStandaloneNiFi:HTTPusingProxy>
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1857 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1857>
[3] https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#proxy_configuration
<https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#proxy_configuration>
[4] https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#site_to_site_reverse_proxy_properties
<https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#site_to_site_reverse_proxy_properties>
[5] https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#site-to-site-and-reverse-proxy-examples
<https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#site-to-site-and-reverse-proxy-examples>


Andy LoPresto
alopresto@apache.org
alopresto.apache@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

> On May 16, 2019, at 8:31 AM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think it might be simpler to implement it as a separate
> PackageContent processor that you would use right before InvokeHttp.
> Only because InvokeHttp is already quite complex, and really the
> packaging is a separate function from the http interaction.
> 
> PackageContent would be the reverse of UnpackContent.
> 
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:26 AM Michael Di Domenico
> <mdidomenico4@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:20 AM Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Well MergeContent in general is meant to take many flow files and
>>> merge them together, so typically if you were using the flow file
>>> format, the idea would be to create a single flow file where the
>>> content contained (flow1 attrs, content)(flow 2 attrs, content) etc,
>>> but what I was suggesting was to try to configure the processor in a
>>> way that it never actually merges multiple flow files and just acts on
>>> 1 flow file. Essentially trying to use the packaging functionality of
>>> MergeContent without the merging, since there is no corresponding
>>> PackageContent processor to go with the UnpackContent processor.
>> 
>> Oh, i see.  I'll give it a try and see.
>> 
>> Do you know how hard it would be to get the "Send flow" added into invokehttp?


Mime
View raw message