I like it +1 On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Mark Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm a +1 > > > > On May 6, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Brandon DeVries <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1. Seems like a good idea, and now is a good time. > > > > Brandon > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:31 PM Aldrin Piri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> I would like to propose a refactoring of the nifi-api for our master/1.0 > >> branch. In summary, a lightweight and concise view of this module > allows > >> for reduced footprint of the NIFI API for components and minimizes the > >> creep of those items that authoring components do not need to use. > >> > >> In a broader context there is a core set of interfaces that users will > >> interface with in their generation of new extensions for NiFi. > Summarily, > >> these components have comprised Processors, Controller Services, > Reporting > >> Tasks, & Prioritizers (the last of which is currently under discussion > to > >> potentially be removed from this forward facing status). > >> > >> What I would like to suggest is the refactoring of the nifi-api module > to > >> be broken down into to two components: the nifi-api and the > >> nifi-framework-api. nifi-api will encompass all things developers would > >> need to provide extensions tailored toward interacting with dataflow. > >> nifi-framework-api would address the more internal items that are also > >> extensible, but not something that is typically implemented and would > >> consist of the remainder of those items not in nifi-api. > >> > >> This enables a core set of APIs that extensions can implement with a > >> broader perspective of providing API compatibility between both NiFi and > >> MiNiFi. This enables some nice reuse of work with the goal ultimately > >> amounting to, write for NiFi, run on MiNiFi and the reverse. > >> > >> Logistically, for NiFi extension writers, at first glance, not much > would > >> change with their efforts. The core dependency would remain the same, > but > >> would be curtailed in its scope to only what is required. Framework > >> components of course, would need to be updated to include a dependency > on > >> nifi-framework-api. > >> > >> Given that the new structure would not yet be released, and to allow > MiNiFi > >> to continue on its development path, a Git submodule or subtree would be > >> introduced into MiNiFi and supporting documentation on how to make use > of > >> this for those not familiar. > >> > >
