Ok it is still not clear what the reason for needing it in attributes is though... Is there another processor you are using after this that only works off attributes?
Just trying to understand if there is another way to accomplish what you want to do. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jorge Machado <jom...@me.com> wrote: > We are using nifi for Workflow and we get from a database like job_status and > job_name and some nested json columns. (30 columns) > We need to put it as attributes from the Flow file and not the content. For > the first part (columns without a json is done by groovy script) but then > would be nice to use this standard processor and instead of writing this to a > flow content write it to attributes. > > > Jorge Machado > > > > > >> On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:47, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >
