. Probably change the mime.type attribute. It might not
> >>>> even
> >>>>>> have any config properties at all if we only support flowfile-v3 and
> >>>> not v1
> >>>>>> or v2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
alternative is to
MergeContent 1
file into FlowFile-v3 format then InvokeHTTP. What does the
community
think about supporting a new PackageFlowFile processor that is
simple
to
configure (compared to MergeContent!) and simply packages flowfile
attributes + content into a FlowFile-v[1,2,3] format
this makes sense to me. Id only bother with v3 or
> >> whatever
> >> > > is
> >> > > > latest. We want to dump the old code. And if there are seriously
> >> older
> >> > > > versions v1,v2 then nifi 1.x can be used.
> >>
implementation and config of merge content i think. What did you
>> have in
>> > > > mind for that?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:53 AM Michael Moser
>> wrote:
>>
e challenge is that you end up needing some of the same complexity
> in
> > > > implementation and config of merge content i think. What did you
> have in
> > > > mind for that?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Fri,
nks
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:53 AM Michael Moser wrote:
> > >
> > > > Devs,
> > > >
> > > > I can't find if this was suggested before, so here goes. With the
> > demise
> > > > of PostHTTP in NiFi 2.0, the reco
ore, so here goes. With the
> demise
> > > of PostHTTP in NiFi 2.0, the recommended alternative is to
> MergeContent 1
> > > file into FlowFile-v3 format then InvokeHTTP. What does the community
> > > think about supporting a new PackageFlowFile processor t
; > I can't find if this was suggested before, so here goes. With the demise
> > of PostHTTP in NiFi 2.0, the recommended alternative is to MergeContent 1
> > file into FlowFile-v3 format then InvokeHTTP. What does the community
> > think about supporting a new PackageFlowFile
demise
> > of PostHTTP in NiFi 2.0, the recommended alternative is to MergeContent 1
> > file into FlowFile-v3 format then InvokeHTTP. What does the community
> > think about supporting a new PackageFlowFile processor that is simple to
> > configure (compared to MergeContent!) and simply
ent 1
> file into FlowFile-v3 format then InvokeHTTP. What does the community
> think about supporting a new PackageFlowFile processor that is simple to
> configure (compared to MergeContent!) and simply packages flowfile
> attributes + content into a FlowFile-v[1,2,3] format? This would a
I have had to use that pattern myself recently. I think a simple
PackageFlowFile processor makes a lot of sense. I am +1.
Brandon
From: Michael Moser
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:52:52 AM
To: dev@nifi.apache.org
Subject: new PackageFlowFile processor
Devs
Devs,
I can't find if this was suggested before, so here goes. With the demise
of PostHTTP in NiFi 2.0, the recommended alternative is to MergeContent 1
file into FlowFile-v3 format then InvokeHTTP. What does the community
think about supporting a new PackageFlowFile processor that is simple
12 matches
Mail list logo
