jrebmann commented on PR #11708: URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/11708#issuecomment-5834752171
> > The latest LGTM but I'm a bit concerned by the addition of this new property to all registry clients. We always try to not expose too many things that may be super low level implementation details. While I understand the intent, I'm wondering if we should add this at this point. We could start just with the GitLab first-page limit and capability-description update. Or are you in a scenario where this caching is really needed because you have many instances of the same versioned flow? > > cc @exceptionfactory for additional thoughts on this > > Thanks @pvillard31, I agree with your concern about the addition of a new optional property. > > Although I appreciate the intent of preserving existing behavior, I think it is better to take an incremental approach, start with the GitLab page limit, and then revisit this question if it becomes a problem. In most use cases, the most recent values are the important ones, and visualizing extensive history in NiFi itself is less useful. So I also recommend removing the property for this initial change. Hi @exceptionfactory, Hi @pvillard31, thank you for your comments. I completely understand your concerns. But I have a few questions: 1. Does that mean the changes will be distributed across two releases? 2. If so, I'm afraid I can't expect the fixes to be available by the end of the year? Or can I? 3. Is it possible to merge selectively and in parts, or would I have to split it into two commits? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
