It makes sense there would be an mvp set of registry capability and thus a dependency for nifi 2.0 on registry readiness/version. Otherwise I would largely hope not.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:29 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Will that effort or planning be across all the nifi projects? minifi / cpp > / registry etc? > > > On June 14, 2019 at 13:01:36, Joe Witt (joe.w...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Peter, > > Yeah I think we're all circling around similar thoughts on things which are > 'best for a major release' and we need to start codifying that. At the > same time we need this to be focused on items which can only reasonably > happen in a major release and not become a new kitchen sink for > JIRAs/ideas. We should frame up a wiki page for this effort. I'm happy to > kick that off soon (time permitting). In my mind the key domino here is > having a Flow Registry that can hold extensions and we can then make nifi > 2.0 fundamentally about distributing nifi as a kernel (small as possible) > and all extensions come from a flow registry on demand. Other obvious > things like Java 11 as the base requirement and killing off deprecated > things come to mind. > > Thanks > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:45 AM Peter Wicks (pwicks) <pwi...@micron.com> > wrote: > > > I've seen a lot of comments along the line of, "I don't think this will > > happen before NiFi 2.0". Do we have a roadmap/list somewhere of the big > > general changes planned for NiFi 2.0 or some kind of 2.0 roadmap? > > > > --Peter > > >
