I was thinking 1 file in -> 1 flowfile-v3 file out. No merging of multiple files at all. 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.
-- Mike On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:56 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike > > In user terms 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. > > The 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, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:53 AM Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 to > > configure (compared to MergeContent!) and simply packages flowfile > > attributes + content into a FlowFile-v[1,2,3] format? This would also > > offer a simple way to export flowfiles from NiFi that could later be > > re-ingested and recovered using UnpackContent. I don't want to submit a > PR > > for such a processor without first asking the community whether this > would > > be acceptable. > > > > Thanks, > > -- Mike > > >
