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.w...@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 <trk...@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.gil...@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.w...@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 <trk...@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 <aldrinp...@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 <trk...@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 > >> >>> > >> >
