Paresh, While not a direct response to the 'when it will be available' question...
An alternative to using Site-to-Site in the interim is PostHTTP (sending side) and ListenHTTP (receiving side). You can use distribute load in front of that and multiple PostHTTP processors to provide similar behavior to Site-to-Site. Right now there is considerable effort to close-in on the NiFi 0.5.0 release. If you have review feedback or testing results for that release you would like to contribute please let us know. Thanks Joe On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Paresh Shah <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, > > Any ideas when will this fix be available. Since we are kind of blocked > without having this ability. > > Thanks > Paresh > > On 1/25/16, 5:22 PM, "Matt Gilman" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Paresh, >> >>Currently, the definition of a Remote Process Group (inputs/outputs, etc) >>is driven by the instance running at the target URI. They are modeled both >>visually and structurally after local Process Groups. They allow one NiFi >>instance to communicate with another as though it was a local Process >>Group. In trying to keep as consistent as possible with local Process >>Groups changing the target URI was never implemented. It's certainly a >>valid use case as we already offer changing the target URI for various >>*Http Processors as well as changing available relationships for various >>RouteOn* Processors. I've created a JIRA [1] for adding this capability. >> >>Your comments about deployment into different environments is something >>that we will be addressing with the variable registry [2]. This will allow >>users to define variables which could be referenced in various locations >>throughout the application. >> >>Matt >> >>[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1440 >>[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Variable+Registry >> >>On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Paresh Shah <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> We are not able to update the ³targetUri² for a RPG once its >>>instantiated. >>> Is there any reason why this is the case. We need to be able to set it >>>at >>> deployment time depending upon the different env ( dev, staging Š) >>> >>> Another question was, why is the RPG not following the standard >>>processor >>> framework I.e why is it being treated as a special case. >>> >>> Any insights will be appreciated. >>> >>> Paresh >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged >>>and >>> confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the >>>person(s) >>> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby >>>notified >>> that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this >>> communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all >>>copies >>> of the original message. >>> ________________________________ >>> > > ________________________________ > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the > original message. > ________________________________
