What would be the main use case for wanting all the flattened values in attributes?
If the reason was to keep the original content, we could probably just added an original relationship. Also, I think FlattenJson supports flattening a flow file where the root is an array of JSON documents (although I'm not totally sure), so you'd have to consider what to do in that case. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Pierre Villard <pierre.villard...@gmail.com> wrote: > No I do see how this could be convenient in some cases. My comment was > more: you can certainly submit a PR for that feature, but it'll need to be > clearly documented using the appropriate annotations, documentation, and > property descriptions. > > 2018-03-20 10:20 GMT+01:00 Jorge Machado <jom...@me.com>: > >> Hi Pierre, I’m aware of that. So This means the change would not be >> accepted correct ? >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge Machado >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 20 Mar 2018, at 09:54, Pierre Villard <pierre.villard...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Jorge, >> > >> > I think this should be carefully documented to remind users that the >> > attributes are in memory. Doing what you propose would mean having in >> > memory the full content of the flow file as long as the flow file is >> > processed in the workflow (unless you remove attributes using >> > UpdateAttributes). >> > >> > Pierre >> > >> > 2018-03-20 7:55 GMT+01:00 Jorge Machado <jom...@me.com>: >> > >> >> Hey guys, >> >> >> >> I would like to change the FlattenJson Procerssor to be possible to >> >> Flatten to the attributes instead of Only to content. Is this a good >> Idea ? >> >> would the PR be accepted ? >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Jorge Machado >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
