Paresh, Input/Output ports are allowed to be inside of Process Groups. These facilitate data flow in between the Process Group and it's parent Process Group. In the case of the root Process Group, it facilitates remote data flows with other NiFi instances (or anything that can speak the site-to-site protocol). This restriction is to keep a consistent model that is most importantly clear to the end user.
There have been other discussions and feature proposals for creating Function Groups (re-usable Process Group) [1] and Wormhole Connections (like a symbolic link) [2]. These added features will help alleviate some of the restrictions enforced the by Process Group model. Matt [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Reference-able+Process+Groups [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Wormhole+Connections On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Paresh Shah <paresh.s...@lifelock.com> wrote: > In our use case to keep the UI managable we create different > ProcessorGroups for the different pipelines. But when using the > RemoteProcessorGroups and InputPorts we are forced to move the pipelines > out of the processor groups and into the root canvas. This helps us tear > down and do the deployment cleanly. > > If someone can give reasons for the above and also can it be changed so > that we can work with RPG/InputPorts/ProcessorGroups. > > Thanks > Paresh > ________________________________ > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies > of the original message. > ________________________________ >
