Github user taftster commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272
I'm happy with this PR. Thanks @pvillard31 for all the effort and seeing
this through many changes and discussions.
@JPercivall can you still merge this? I'm in between environm
Github user taftster commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#discussion_r67284145
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/InvokeHTTP.java
---
@@ -761,24
Github user taftster commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#discussion_r67283832
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/InvokeHTTP.java
---
@@ -215,14
Github user taftster commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272
I can try to look at it tonight. But no problems if you want to step in.
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joe Percivall
wrote:
>
> @taftster will you have time to finis
Github user taftster commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#discussion_r56928549
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/InvokeHTTP.java
---
@@ -444,14
Github user taftster commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#discussion_r56928543
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/InvokeHTTP.java
---
@@ -215,14
Github user taftster commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#discussion_r56928547
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/InvokeHTTP.java
---
@@ -215,14
Github user taftster commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#issuecomment-199086081
This pull request is not strictly dealing with NIFI-1620. The edge case of
suppressing the Content-Type header for an empty message-body makes sense to
fix and address
Github user taftster commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/272#issuecomment-196079414
I'm not entirely sure if this is a good idea. Any web service which
_disallows_ a standard HTTP header is arguably broken. Quoting RFC 2616:
> Any
Github user taftster commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/202#issuecomment-179495566
1) StringBuilder should probably be preferred to StringBuffer in this case.
Though it probably won't matter for performance, the intention is that this is
Github user taftster commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/80#issuecomment-137332775
I'm not sure that checking for the existence of an existing object is that
important. At minimum, it's causing an extra call to the remote S3 service to
determ
Github user taftster commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/71#issuecomment-130314880
Why is propertyMap marked volatile? The value is only ever set once at
construction time.
If the answer is because of thread safety, the contents of the HashMap
12 matches
Mail list logo
