Nice discussion on this thread. I'm also in favor of the long-term solution being publishing extension NARs to an extension registry (#3) and removing them from the NiFi convenience binary.
A few thoughts that build upon what others have said: 1. Many decisions, such as the structure of the project/repo(s) and mechanics of the release, don't have to be made right away, though it is probably good to start considering the impacts of various approaches as people have. There is a lot that has to be done to make progress towards the long-term goal regardless of those decisions, some of which follows below. 2. We can start adding support for extensions to the Registry project (obviously). 3. As James W and others have pointed out, start classifying which components belong in the "core" convenience binary and which ones will be published separately. For the ones published separately, we can further classifying them down into categories / "packs" to reduce the burden on end-users. 4. Anticipating that the release cycles of NiFI-core and extensions will eventually be separated, we should design a way for versioned extensions to declare which versions of (Mi)NiFi they are compatible with, i.e. as a semantic version range. There are lots of good examples to pull from; pretty much any modern package management framework has some concept of support for >=, ==, =~ syntax that honors semantic versioning. If done well, this should reduce the burden of managing separate release cycles as minor and patch releases of NiFi will be backwards compatible w.r.t the public APIs used by extensions, so in most cases extensions declaring a simple 'NiFi >= 1.x' should suffice. 4b. Likewise, when defining a versioned flow in NiFi, the user should be able to fix the version of each processor to a specific extension version. 5. Great work Tony in surfacing some data on NAR size and jar duplication across NARs. Following up on Bryan's email that explores possible solutions to this, I think the best approach would be the concept of lib NARs and a more flexible NAR dependency declaration/evaluation mechanism, e.g., the "mix-in style" Bryan described vs. the current single-class inheritance style. I'm not sure what work this would require for making the runtime classpaths work correctly. For just developing/ publishing/installing NARs in this style leveraging an extension registry, we are getting pretty close to describing a full-fledged package manager, both on the server side (NiFi Registry) and client side (publishing tooling and NiFi for importing flows that reference processors that declare dependencies). Given that NAR packs could solve the immediate problem of reducing the size of individual binaries, I think we should make jar de-duplication a goal for after a functional extension registry, while keeping it in mind for the design of the extension registry. On 1/16/18, 11:08, "Bryan Bende" <[email protected]> wrote: I still like the "NAR packs" idea even for the single repo approach. I think if we only provide a "light" binary and then say that everything else has to be built on your own, it creates a big barrier to entry for a lot of users. With the NAR packs approach we could provide one binary that is the actual application, and then multiple zips/tars that each contain a set of NARs. So someone gets the first binary and then adds whichever NAR packs to it. This solves the immediate problem of having any single binary exceed a certain size. As a side effect of whatever we do, I was also hoping we could make the build process easier for folks working on the framework. If all we do is change our current assembly, I think you'd still incur the time of building all the NARs since they are listed in the modules section nifi-nar-bundles pom, even though most of them wouldn't be included in the new "light" assembly. We'd have to consider restructuring the git repo a little bit if this was something we wanted to do. Possibly the top-level could be divided into "nifi-core" and "nifi-nar-bundles", where nifi-core produced the light assembly so folks working on the framework can build this quickly, but if you want to build everything then you build from the root pom which also builds all the NAR packs. Just something to think about if we are going to make changes. Regarding the duplication of many JARs (thanks for putting the data together Tony!)... We could try to collapse common dependencies so that we don't end up with so many duplicate copies of the same JAR, but I don't know exactly how we'd set this up... We could promote a JAR to the lib directory which makes it visible to every single NAR and thus no longer needs to be bundled into each NAR. That works great for the NARs that already use the dependency, but now means that a bunch of other NARs have this extra thing on the classpath, and also means we are forcing the version of that library upon every NAR which somewhat defeats the purpose of NARs. We could create "lib" NARs, similar to the original intent of nifi-hadoop-libraries-nar. For example, we could create nifi-jackson-libraries-nar, and then any NAR that needs jackson would have this as their parent. This gets tricky when their is more than one library in play, for example lets say we also had nifi-bcprov-libraries-nar, and then some other NAR needs jackson and bcprov, there can be only one parent NAR so you can only pick one of them. You could chain things together, but then how do you decide the order of the chain... nifi-xyz-nar -> nifi-jackson-nar -> nifi-bcprov-nar VS. nifi-xyz-nar -> nifi-bcprov-nar -> nifi-jackson-nar. Right now having a NAR dependency is like single class inheritance, and it seems like we would also need a mix-in style NAR dependency to be able to add multiple lib NARs without getting into this chaining issue. On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Mike Thomsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Also maybe #4: Message Queue support (JMS, Kafka, etc.) > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Mike Thomsen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> One possibility: 3 "packs." Such as: >> >> 1. Big Data. >> 2. Search >> 3. Non-BD NoSQL. >> >> Each pack would be an assembly of NARs that correspond to the category. >> >> The core would have JDBC support and all of the data mutator processors. >> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:54 PM, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think a reduced build is a good way forward until the extension registry >>> is ready. If we can publish the remaining processors in one or more >>> additional artifacts, that would be ideal. The admin burden of more git >>> repositories or separate releases does not appeal to me, especially since >>> we do not believe it to be our long-term path. >>> >>> It's not going to be easy to decide on a "core" build with "extras" sold >>> separately. But we will have to confront the division for the registry >>> solution in any case, we might as well get started on it. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Mike Thomsen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Since the limit was bumped to 1.6GB, it might be prudent to not do too >>> much >>> > NiFi 1.X and instead focus on a comprehensive solution that coincides >>> with >>> > 2.0. I think that would be a time when a lot of users might expect and >>> be >>> > tolerant of breaking changes on issues like this. >>> > >>> > Also, is there a clear process for deprecating processors? If not, there >>> > should be because it would be really helpful for doing cleanup. >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Brett Ryan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Why are core modules not listing everything as provided? >>> > > >>> > > IDE’s solve this problem with the use of dependency libraries. As an >>> > > example NetBeans nbm’s have a single purpose, you must export the >>> > packages >>> > > to be exposed. >>> > > >>> > > We do the same with confluence modules using felix. >>> > > >>> > > Why is NiFi doing things different just so the person who wants to >>> > install >>> > > many custom nars can be lazy? >>> > > >>> > > > On 14 Jan 2018, at 08:59, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > I added some more stats to the wiki page, trying to determine what >>> > > > dependencies are included in jars. It seems like there is >>> opportunity. >>> > > > >>> > > > Highlights, 50 copies of what appears to be some version of >>> > bcprov-jdk15 >>> > > > for a total of 162M. 51 copies of jackson-databind. >>> > > > >>> > > > total size copies jar >>> > > > 30.97MB 65 META-INF/bundled-dependencies/ >>> > > commons-lang3-XXX.jar >>> > > > 32.53MB 50 META-INF/bundled-dependencies/ >>> > > bcpkix-jdk15on-XXX.jar >>> > > > 33.55MB 16 META-INF/bundled-dependencies/guava-XXX.jar >>> > > > 39.62MB 1 META-INF/bundled-dependencies/ >>> > > jython-shaded-XXX.jar >>> > > > 63.06MB 51 >>> > > > META-INF/bundled-dependencies/jackson-databind-XXX.jar >>> > > > 162.07MB 50 META-INF/bundled-dependencies/ >>> > > bcprov-jdk15on-XXX.jar >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Joey Frazee < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> I tend to have feelings similar to Michael about a multi-repo >>> > approach. >>> > > >> I’ve rarely seen it help and more often seen it hurt — it’s >>> confusing >>> > > >> (especially to newcomers), stuff gets neglected because it’s >>> easier to >>> > > >> ignore, you need another master project or some such to do an >>> entire >>> > > build. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Maybe git submodules could help mitigate this, but creating >>> > independent >>> > > >> assemblies or using different build profiles to enable building and >>> > > >> packaging the binaries in different ways would satisfy everything >>> > except >>> > > >> disentangling the releases. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -joey >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> On Jan 13, 2018, 12:40 PM -0600, Brandon DeVries <[email protected]>, >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> I agree... Long term extension registry, short term one repo with >>> > > >> different >>> > > >>> assemblies (e.g. standard, slim, analytic, etc...). >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Brandon >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:35 PM Pierre Villard < >>> > > >> [email protected] >>> > > >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>>> Option #3 also has my preference. But it's probably a good idea >>> to >>> > > only >>> > > >>>> keep one git repo and play with the assembly and Maven profiles >>> for >>> > > the >>> > > >>>> releases, no? It'd be certainly easier for release management >>> > process. >>> > > >> But >>> > > >>>> this decision could also depend on how the option #3 is going to >>> be >>> > > >>>> implemented I guess. >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> 2018-01-13 6:36 GMT-07:00 Joe Witt <[email protected]>: >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>>> thanks tony! >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> On Jan 12, 2018 10:48 PM, "Tony Kurc" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> I put some of the data I was working with on the wiki - >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/NiFi+ >>> > > >> 1.5.0+nar+files >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Jeremy Dyer < >>> [email protected] >>> > > >>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> So my favorite option is Bryan’s option number “three” of >>> using >>> > > >> the >>> > > >>>>>>> extension registry. Now my thought is do we really need to add >>> > > >>>>> complexity >>> > > >>>>>>> and do anything in the mean time or just focus on that? >>> Meaning >>> > > >> we >>> > > >>>> have >>> > > >>>>>>> roughly 500mb of available capacity today so why don’t we >>> spend >>> > > >> those >>> > > >>>>> man >>> > > >>>>>>> hours we would spend on getting the second repo up on the >>> > > >> extension >>> > > >>>>>>> registry instead? >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> @Bryan do you have thoughts about the deployment of those bars >>> > > >> in the >>> > > >>>>>>> extension registry? Since we won’t be able to build the >>> release >>> > > >>>> binary >>> > > >>>>>>> anymore would we still need to create separate repos for the >>> > > >> nars or >>> > > >>>>>> no?? I >>> > > >>>>>>> have used the registry a little but I’m not 100% sure on your >>> > > >> vision >>> > > >>>>> for >>> > > >>>>>>> the nars >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> - Jeremy Dyer >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2018, at 10:18 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> >>> > > >> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> I was looking at nar sizes, and thought some data may be >>> > > >> helpful. I >>> > > >>>>>> used >>> > > >>>>>>> my recent RC1 verification as a basis for getting file sizes, >>> and >>> > > >>>> just >>> > > >>>>>> got >>> > > >>>>>>> the file size for each file in the assembly named "*.nar". I >>> > > >> don't >>> > > >>>> know >>> > > >>>>>>> whether the images I pasted in will go through, but I made >>> some >>> > > >>>>> graphs.b >>> > > >>>>>>> The first is a histogram of nar file size in buckets of 10MB. >>> The >>> > > >>>>> second >>> > > >>>>>>> basically is similar to a cumulative distribution, the x axis >>> is >>> > > >> the >>> > > >>>>>> "rank" >>> > > >>>>>>> of the nar (smallest to largest), and the y-axis is how what >>> > > >> fraction >>> > > >>>>> of >>> > > >>>>>>> the all the sizes of the nars together are that rank or >>> lower. In >>> > > >>>> other >>> > > >>>>>>> words, on the graph, the dot at 60 and ~27 means that the >>> > > >> smallest 60 >>> > > >>>>>> nars >>> > > >>>>>>> contribute only ~27% of the total. Of note, the standard and >>> > > >>>> framework >>> > > >>>>>> nars >>> > > >>>>>>> are at 83 and 84. >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Michael Moser < >>> > > >>>> [email protected] >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>> And of course, as I hit <send> I thought of one more thing. >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> We could keep all of the code in 1 git repo (1 project) but >>> > > >> the >>> > > >>>>>>>>> nifi-assembly part of the build could be broken up to build >>> > > >> core >>> > > >>>>> NiFi >>> > > >>>>>>>>> separately from the tar/zip functional grouping of other >>> > > >> NARs. >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Michael Moser < >>> > > >>>> [email protected] >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Long term I would also like to see #3 be the solution. I >>> > > >> think >>> > > >>>>> what >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Joseph N described could be part of the capabilities of #3. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I would like to add a note of caution with respect to >>> > > >>>> reorganizing >>> > > >>>>>> and >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> releasing extension bundles separately: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - the burden on release manager expands because many more >>> > > >>>>>> projects >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> have to be released; probably not all on each release cycle >>> > > >>>> but >>> > > >>>>>> it >>> > > >>>>>>> could >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> still be many >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - the chance of accidentally forgetting to release a >>> > > >> project >>> > > >>>>> in a >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> release cycle becomes non-zero >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - sharing code between projects gets a bit harder because >>> > > >> you >>> > > >>>>>> have >>> > > >>>>>>> to >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> manage releasing projects in a specific order >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - it becomes harder to find all of the projects that need >>> > > >> to >>> > > >>>>>> change >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> when shared code is added >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - the simple act of finding code becomes harder ... in >>> > > >> which >>> > > >>>>>>> project >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> is that class in? (IDEs like IntelliJ can search in 1 >>> > > >>>> project, >>> > > >>>>>> but >>> > > >>>>>>> if they >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> search across multiple projects, then I haven't learned >>> > > >> how) >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I used to maintain several nars in separate projects, and >>> > > >>>> recently >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> reorganized them into 1 project (following NiFi's >>> > > >> multi-module >>> > > >>>>> maven >>> > > >>>>>>> build) >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> and life has become much easier! >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- Mike >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Chris Herrera < >>> > > >>>>>>> [email protected] >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I very much like the solution proposed by Bryan below. >>> > > >> This >>> > > >>>> would >>> > > >>>>>>> allow >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for a cleaner docker image as well, while still proving >>> > > >> the >>> > > >>>>>>> functionality >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> as needed. For sure, the extension registry will be >>> > > >> great, but >>> > > >>>> in >>> > > >>>>>>> the mean >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> time this is an adequate mid step. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Chris >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2018, 2:52 PM -0600, Bryan Bende < >>> > > >> [email protected] >>> > > >>>>> , >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Long term I'd like to see the extension registry take >>> > > >> form >>> > > >>>> and >>> > > >>>>>> have >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that be the solution (#3). >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In the more near term, we could separate all of the >>> > > >> NARs, >>> > > >>>>> except >>> > > >>>>>>> for >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> framework and maybe standard processors & services, >>> > > >> into a >>> > > >>>>>> separate >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> git repo. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In that new git repo we could organize things like Joe >>> > > >> N just >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> described according to some kind of functional >>> > > >> grouping. Each >>> > > >>>>> of >>> > > >>>>>>> these >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> functional bundles could produce its own tar/zip which >>> > > >> we can >>> > > >>>>>> make >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> available for download. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> That would separate the release cycles between core >>> > > >> NiFi and >>> > > >>>>> the >>> > > >>>>>>> other >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> NARs, and also avoid having any single binary artifact >>> > > >> that >>> > > >>>>> gets >>> > > >>>>>>> too >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> large. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joseph Niemiec < >>> > > >>>>>>> [email protected] >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just a random thought. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Drop In Lib packs... All the Hadoop ones in one >>> > > >> package for >>> > > >>>>>>> example >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> that >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be added to a slim Nifi install. Another may be >>> > > >> for >>> > > >>>>> Cloud, >>> > > >>>>>> or >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Database >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Interactions, Integration (JMS, FTP, etc) of course >>> > > >>>> defining >>> > > >>>>>>> these >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> groups >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the tricky part... Or perhaps some type of >>> > > >>>> installer >>> > > >>>>>>> which >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> allows >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you to elect which packages to download to add to >>> > > >> the slim >>> > > >>>>>>> install? >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joe Witt < >>> > > >>>>> [email protected] >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Team, >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NiFi convenience binary (tar.gz/zip) size has >>> > > >> grown >>> > > >>>> to >>> > > >>>>>>> 1.1GB now >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the latest release. Apache infra expanded it to >>> > > >> 1.6GB >>> > > >>>>>>> allowance >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for us but has stated this is the last time. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15816 >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need consider: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) removing old nars/less commonly used nars/or >>> > > >>>>> particularly >>> > > >>>>>>> massive >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nars from the assembly we distribute by default. >>> > > >> Folks >>> > > >>>> can >>> > > >>>>>>> still use >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these things if they want just not from our >>> > > >> convenience >>> > > >>>>>> binary >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) collapsing nars with highly repeating deps >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Getting the extension registry baked into the >>> > > >> Flow >>> > > >>>>>> Registry >>> > > >>>>>>> then >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving to separate releases for extension bundles. >>> > > >> The >>> > > >>>> main >>> > > >>>>>>> release >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then would be just the NiFi framework. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any other ideas ? >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll plan to start identifying candiates for >>> > > >> removal >>> > > >>>> soon. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >>
