Thanks Oleg and Joe, I am not currently convinced that nifi is the solution as well, but it is a nice way for us to manage actions based on the result of a mapreduce job.
Our use cases is to have follow on processors that perform actions based on the results of the map reduce jobs. One processor kicks off the M/R process and then the results are sent down the flow. The problem with our current scenario is that we have two separate flows that utilize the same location as the output for the M/R locations. One simple way might be to use mongo itself has a locking mechanism. On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Oleg Zhurakousky < ozhurakou...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Vincent > > This sounds more like an architectural question and even outside of NiFi > in order to achieve that especially in the distributed environment one > would need some kind of coordination component. And while we can think of > variety of way to accomplish that I am not entirely convinced that this is > the right direction. > Would you mind sharing a bit more about your use case and perhaps we can > jointly come up with a better and hopefully simpler solution? > > Cheers > Oleg > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:45 PM, Vincent Russell <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I have two processors (that aren't part of the same flow) that write to > the same resource (a mongo collection) via a map reduce job. > > I don't want both to run at the same time. > On Mar 28, 2016 6:28 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Vincent, >> >> Not really and that would largely be by design. Can you describe the >> use case more so we can suggest alternatives or perhaps understand the >> motivation better? >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Vincent Russell >> <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Is it possible to have one processor block while another specified >> processor >> > is running (within the onTrigger method). >> > >> > I can do this on a non-clustered nifi with a synchronized block I >> guess, but >> > i wanted to know if there was a more idiomatic way of doing this. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Vincent >> > >
