For me personally, I don't see a value add of MiNiFi Java. The needs that NiFi can't address MiNiFi Java can't either, so my focus is MiNiFi C++ as that is the hole that needs fixing, again in my opinion, so that is where my MiNiFi focus is going to be.
As I go through things I am sure I will have more questions about choices that have been made so far regarding MiNiFi C++ (as with all things, we all have different views on how do things and there isn't necessarily a right/wrong answer). If there is a better forum to address these more specific to MiNiFi C++, please let me know. My most pressing question is the choice to use LevelDB for the provenance repository rather than LMDB. A core tenant of NiFi is fault tolerance in near all cases (as well as full data provenance). As LevelDB is vulnerable to corruption during write operations due to unexpected application interruptions, would not something more fault tolerant such as LMDB (covered under OpenLDAP Public License) be preferable? The question of fault tolerance applies to the flowfile repository as well. -- View this message in context: http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/DISCUSS-MiNiFi-C-0-1-0-Release-tp13956p13959.html Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
