[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-66?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16358831#comment-16358831
]
Joseph Percivall edited comment on MINIFI-66 at 2/9/18 7:14 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
[~aldrin] I may be confused (or taking an overly Java agent perspective) but I
don't think this is the right direction. I would prefer we go the route of a
combination of exposing the agent-specific (bootstrap) properties to the config
transformer[1] and either just preserving the properties on registry update
(like was done in MINFI-434[2]) or add them to the registry data model.
I don't think we want to go this direction because as a user I want to be able
to have the ability to change as much as possible within a warm config change
as possible. With the end-goal of natively supporting having various classes of
agents, if I have a bug within the "instance process configuration" of a class
of agent, I don't want to have to modify it on all of them manually.
Ideally, I think we'd be trying to go the other way and exposing more of the
configuration that can be automatically warm re-deployed as possible. That
said, is the idea to migrate the flow portion out of the config.yml to another
file that is dynamically updateable?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-424
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-434
was (Author: jpercivall):
[~aldrin] I may be confused but I don't think this is the right direction. I
would prefer we go the direction of a combination of exposing the
agent-specific (bootstrap) properties to the config transformer[1] and either
just preserving the properties on registry update (like was done in
MINFI-434[2]) or add them to the registry data model.
I don't think we want to go this direction because as a user I want to be able
to have the ability to change as much as possible within a warm config change
as possible. With the end-goal of natively supporting having various different
classes of agents, if I have a bug within the "instance process configuration"
of a class of agent, I don't want to have to manually modify it on all of them.
Ideally, I think we'd be trying to go the other way and exposing more of the
configuration that is able to be automatically warm re-deployed as possible.
That said, is the idea to migrate the flow portion out of the config.yml to
another file that is dynamically updateable?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-424
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-434
> Migrate non-flow properties from config.yml to bootstrap
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MINIFI-66
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-66
> Project: Apache NiFi MiNiFi
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Agent Configuration/Installation, Processing
> Configuration
> Affects Versions: 0.0.1
> Reporter: Aldrin Piri
> Assignee: Aldrin Piri
> Priority: Major
>
> To facilitate greater ease in configuring instances, it would be helpful to
> have the config.yml be a descriptor only of processing flow with the actual
> instance process configuration (system properties, file locations, etc) being
> migrated to something like bootstrap.conf.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
