Daniel First of all its cool that you're thinking about this sort of thing. I'd say the key consideration as to whether it is appropriate in the ASF hosted/managed community for Apache NiFi is whether its licensing adheres to ASLv2 and the ASF interpretation of which licenses are compatible.
Would you be using these APIs through a client library that would be depended on by your NiFi code? And if so what are the license terms of those libraries? If it is not that you would have client libraries bundled with your NiFi artifact there is then the issue of the API itself. I might be overthinking this but there could in some cases even be licensing considerations even when simply building against a proprietary API. If these items do not fit the ASF terms of what is acceptible then you may also consider as a valid alternative hosting the code and binary artifacts elsewhere and simply letting the community know you're building them. Again you'll want to be cognizant of licensing issues but sometimes you'll find even proprietary systems have somewhat open license terms for their client libs/APIs. An additional consideration is whether a given extension to NiFi makes sense to include into the default binary convenience bundle we put out with releases. We're actually thinking we need to move away from this model largely and simply move toward a more a la carte style for extensions backed by a proper registry that allows people to identify which extensions they need in their instance and to address upgrades and so on [1]. When we have that it should help these sorts of cases a good bit too. I'd be happy to look at these items with you to help see what makes sense. In the case of Oracle BRM if this is the proper reference [2] then it is safe to say this could not be contributed to Apache NiFi directly given the licensing terms. If you think i might have misunderstood the applicable license or whatnot please let me know. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Extension%2C+Template%2C+Dataset+Registry [2] https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E16754_01/doc.75/e16706/title.htm Thanks Joe On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Cave <[email protected]> wrote: > For processors that are designed for a specific tool (that may or may not > be open sourced itself), how should they be contributed? > > > > Specifically, I am working on a few Oracle BRM processors for Nifi that > avoid the need to go directly to the database through the problematic SQL > processors and instead use the established api’s. However, as these are > really specialty processors for a specific tool (in this case Oracle BRM), > I don’t know that they belong in a standard bundle or as a higher level nar > bundle. > > > > Is there an in progress nifi-custom-bundle (or some such) that I could add > these too so they are community available, or what is the best practice to > contribute them? > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > *Daniel S. Cave* > > Consultant / Software Developer > > Office: 214.333.2000 | Mobile: 214.517.1222 | Fax: 214.343.1107 > > [image: ssg_email_footer_2013] > > >
