Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

e they include use cases and details that may not occur to > a developer who just picks it up. It is a great way to contribute! > > From: Ryan Hendrickson > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > Date: August 6, 2021 at 03:23:43 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DIS

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

:23:43 To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals If I put Jira's in, then I'd have to admit I'm a developer vs a user :-) I'm just a power user at heart :-) ... Ryan On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:01 PM Otto Fowler wrote: > Ryan, these are awesome, are there ji

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

cases > > From: Ryan Hendrickson > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > Date: August 4, 2021 at 01:14:23 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals > > I'll preface with what I'm about to say is not rooted in any real > understanding of

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Ryan, these are awesome, are there jiras for them? It would be best to capture the requirements / use cases From: Ryan Hendrickson Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org Date: August 4, 2021 at 01:14:23 To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals I'll preface with what I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

ex.html > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>> David Handermann > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:56 AM Mark Bean <

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

; Looks like we just need to knock out 5 JIRAs :) [1] > >>>> > >>>> I felt like we had a label folks were using at one point but quickly > >>>> looking revealed nothing exciting. After this confluence page > >>>> stabilizes a bit we can probably k

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

t;>> >>>> I felt like we had a label folks were using at one point but quickly >>>> looking revealed nothing exciting. After this confluence page >>>> stabilizes a bit we can probably knock out some JIRAs and such. >>>> >>>> [1] https://issue

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NIFI/versions/12339599 > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:06 PM Otto Fowler > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I find myself wishing I had a list of all the jir

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

gt; On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:06 PM Otto Fowler > > wrote: > > > > > > I find myself wishing I had a list of all the jiras / issues that have > > > been put off for a 2.0 release because they required some change or > > another > > > :( > &g

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

; > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NIFI/versions/12339599 > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:06 PM Otto Fowler > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I find myself wishing I had a list of all the jiras / issues that > have > >

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

equired some change or > > another > > > :( > > > > > > From: Joe Witt > > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > > > Date: July 27, 2021 at 12:30:35 > > > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals &g

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

off for a 2.0 release because they required some change or > another > > :( > > > > From: Joe Witt > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > > Date: July 27, 2021 at 12:30:35 > > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

org > Date: July 27, 2021 at 12:30:35 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals > > A few thoughts: > > 1. I would love to see deprecation notices show up in the UI in > various ways to help motivate users to move off things to more >

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

/ bundles. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can see this bringing a large number of benifits including making > > > > Nifi > > > > > > more deployable with things RPM, but also potentially allowing > > those > > > > that >

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

t; > > > > > > > > I can see this bringing a large number of benifits including making > > > > Nifi > > > > > > more deployable with things RPM, but also potentially allowing > > those > > > > that > > > > > &

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

t; > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2021, 20:42 Otto Fowler, > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The issue with updating the aws sdk is if it breaks any one of > the > > > > > > processors. > > > > > > the Web Gateway AP

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

This sounds like a great path for the 2.0 release. I support goals listed in the NiFi 2.0 Proposed Release Goals page and look forward to the cleanup! Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

t; > > > > > The issue with updating the aws sdk is if it breaks any one of the > > > > > processors. > > > > > the Web Gateway API invoke processor for example is not using a > high > > > level > > > > > purpose build client and

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

t; > the Web Gateway API invoke processor for example is not using a high > > level > > > > purpose build client and may break. > > > > > > > > If we change the aws version, we need to coordinate in such a way > that > > they > &

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

; > > can come along reasonably. > > > IE: what happens if 1 or 2 break but the rest or OK? > > > > > > > > > > > > From: David Handermann > > > > > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > > > Date: July 26, 2021 at 09:33:42 > &

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

version, we need to coordinate in such a way that they > > all > > can come along reasonably. > > IE: what happens if 1 or 2 break but the rest or OK? > > > > > > > > From: David Handermann > > > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > > Date: J

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

: dev@nifi.apache.org > Date: July 26, 2021 at 09:33:42 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals > > Chris, > > Thanks for the reply and recommendations. It seems like some of the work to > reorganize the module structure could be d

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

. IE: what happens if 1 or 2 break but the rest or OK? From: David Handermann Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org Date: July 26, 2021 at 09:33:42 To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals Chris, Thanks for the reply and recommendations. It seems like some of the work

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Chris, Thanks for the reply and recommendations. It seems like some of the work to reorganize the module structure could be done outside of a major release, but it would be great to target any breaking changes for 2.0. Perhaps a separate feature proposal on module restructuring, with the goal of

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Might be worth considering refactoring the build as part of this work too, e.g. only building the bits of the repo affected by a commit, etc. - discussed briefly in previous threads but don't think any changes made yet. If NARs/components are likely to be split up and refactored then such work

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Thanks for pointing out the standard NAR bundles, Mark. There are a number of components in the standard NAR bundles with particular dependencies that would make more sense in separate NARs. Reorganizing the standard NAR to components with limited dependencies and wide applicability would

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

There’s also some code that exists in order to maintain backward compatibility in the repositories. I would very much like the repositories to contain no unnecessary code. And swap file format supports really old formats. And the old impls of the repositories themselves, like PersistentProvRepo

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Russell, AFAICT from looking at Elastic's repos, the low level REST client is still fine. https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/e5518e07f13701e3bb3dcc6842b9023966752497/client/rest/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/client/RestClient.java Our Elasticsearch support is spread over two NARs

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Team, I created the following page on the Apache NiFi wiki to track proposed goals and particular focus areas. If the page should go under another section of the wiki, it can be moved. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/NiFi+2.0+Proposed+Release+Goals The Primary Goals section is

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Bringing up Elastic also reminds me that the Elastic framework has just recently transitioned out of Open Source, so to acknowledge that, maybe some effort toward OpenSearch--I say this not understanding exactly how this sort of thing is considered in a large-scale, world-class software

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

I'd say we'll have to address the branching strategy but not yet. Let's get a sense of the scope/specific bits we want to tackle in 2.0 then worry about best way to go about it. On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:39 AM David Handermann wrote: > > Thanks to everyone who has provided feedback thus far, it

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Thanks to everyone who has provided feedback thus far, it is good to see general interest in moving forward with a release focusing on technical debt removal. It seems like it would be helpful to start gathering removal candidates on a Confluence wiki page, and then turning those into Jira

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Along with the itemized list for ancient components we should look at updating versions of drivers, SDKs, etc. for external systems such as Elasticsearch, Cassandra, etc. There may be breaking changes but 2.0 is probably the right time to get things up to date to make them more useful to more

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

I quite like this idea. It seemed like the first 2.0 release had been being held out for some bigger innovations (nar registry?), but that has also pushed out making nice breaking changes. What would be the mechanics here? Just starting feeding all the candidates into JIRA? Listing out

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

I'm a +1 for removing pretty much all of this stuff. There are security implications to keeping old dependencies around, so the more old code we can remove the better. I agree that eventually we need to move to supporting only Java 11+, and as our next release will probably be about 4 - 6 months

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Jon You're right we have to be careful and you're right there are still significant Java 8 users out there. But we also have to be careful about security and sustainability of the codebase. If we had talked about this last year when that article came out I'd have agreed it is too early.

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Russ Yeah the flow registry is a key part of it. But also now you can download the flow definition in JSON (upload i think is there now too). Templates offered a series of challenges such as we store them in the flow definition which has made flows massive in an unintended way which isn't fun

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Joe, I apologize for the off-topic intrusion, but what replaces templates? The Registry? Templates rocked and we have used them since 0.5.x. Russ On 7/23/21 8:31 AM, Joe Witt wrote: David, I think this is a highly reasonable approach and such a focus will greatly help make a 2.0 release

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

I would be extremely careful about moving to Java 11 -- especially if NiFi 1.x is not actively maintained. I am sure it's not news to anyone, but a lot (most?) of people are still on Java 8, for better or worse, and I do not think moving without a strong, compelling reason is advisable. It's not

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

David, I think this is a highly reasonable approach and such a focus will greatly help make a 2.0 release far more approachable to knock out. Not only that but tech debt reduction would help make work towards major features we'd think about in a 'major release' sense more approachable. We should

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

I'm a +1 for this... Not sure if this falls under "Removing Deprecated Components", but I think we should also look at anything that has been marked as deprecated throughout the code base as a candidate for removal. There are quite a few classes, methods, properties, etc that have been waiting for

[DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

Team, With all of the excellent work that many have contributed to NiFi over the years, the code base has also accumulated some amount of technical debt. A handful of components have been marked as deprecated, and some components remain in the code base to support integration with old versions of