+1
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >>
