[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1833?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15955447#comment-15955447
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-1833:
--------------------------------------

Github user jtstorck commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1636#discussion_r109723701
  
    --- Diff: 
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-azure-bundle/nifi-azure-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/azure/AbstractAzureBlobProcessor.java
 ---
    @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
    +/*
    + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
    + * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
    + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
    + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
    + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
    + * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
    + *
    + *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
    + *
    + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
    + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
    + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
    + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
    + * limitations under the License.
    + */
    +package org.apache.nifi.processors.azure;
    +
    +import java.net.URISyntaxException;
    +import java.util.Arrays;
    +import java.util.Collections;
    +import java.util.List;
    +import java.util.Objects;
    +
    +import org.apache.nifi.components.PropertyDescriptor;
    +import org.apache.nifi.processor.util.StandardValidators;
    +
    +import com.microsoft.azure.storage.StorageException;
    +import com.microsoft.azure.storage.blob.CloudBlob;
    +import com.microsoft.azure.storage.blob.CloudBlobContainer;
    +
    +public abstract class AbstractAzureBlobProcessor extends 
AbstractAzureProcessor {
    +
    +    public static final PropertyDescriptor BLOB = new 
PropertyDescriptor.Builder().name("Blob").description("The filename of the 
blob").addValidator(StandardValidators.NON_EMPTY_VALIDATOR)
    +            
.expressionLanguageSupported(true).required(true).defaultValue("${azure.blobname}").build();
    +
    +    public static final PropertyDescriptor BLOB_TYPE = new 
PropertyDescriptor.Builder()
    +            .name("Blob type")
    +            .description("Blobs can be block type of page type")
    +            .expressionLanguageSupported(true)
    +            .addValidator(StandardValidators.NON_EMPTY_VALIDATOR)
    +            .allowableValues(AzureConstants.BLOCK, AzureConstants.PAGE)
    +            .defaultValue(AzureConstants.BLOCK.getValue())
    +            .required(true).build();
    +
    +    public static final List<PropertyDescriptor> properties = Collections
    +            .unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(AzureConstants.ACCOUNT_NAME, 
AzureConstants.ACCOUNT_KEY, AzureConstants.CONTAINER, BLOB, BLOB_TYPE));
    +
    +    @Override
    +    protected List<PropertyDescriptor> getSupportedPropertyDescriptors() {
    +        return properties;
    +    }
    +
    +    /**
    +     * Get a reference to a blob based on the type.
    +     *
    +     */
    +    protected CloudBlob getBlob(CloudBlobContainer container, String 
blobType, String blobPath) throws URISyntaxException, StorageException {
    --- End diff --
    
    Should blobType be checked more explicitly here?  If blobType doesn't match 
the case of "Block", won't this end up returning a page blob?  If an invalid 
blobType is passed in, is it appropriate that a page blob is returned, or 
should a ProcessorException be thrown?


> Add support for Azure Blob Storage and Table Storage
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-1833
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1833
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Extensions
>    Affects Versions: 0.6.1
>            Reporter: Simon Elliston Ball
>            Priority: Minor
>
> It would be useful to have an Azure equivalent of the current S3 capability. 
> Azure also provides a Table storage mechanism, providing simple key value 
> storage. Since the Azure SDKs are Apache Licensed, this should be reasonably 
> straightforward. A first cut is available as an addition to the existing 
> azure bundle.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Reply via email to