I think the Registry solves part of the issue but even that would lead to duplication of units where we are "copying and pasting" the "code." Versioning would aid in keeping all components in lock step, but will not remedy manual intervention with n-many instances of them. After one was altered, there would still be the manual process where the PGs would each need to be updated when that change was committed and changes were realized after some time delta.
I think the previously discussed Reference-able Process Groups [1] are likely better aligned in conjunction with the Wormhole Connections [2]. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/ Reference-able+Process+Groups [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Wormhole+Connections On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott > > Youre very right there must be a better way. The flow registry with > versioned flows is the answer. You can version control the common logic > and reuse it in as many instances as you need. > > This is like having a flow Class in java terms where you can instantiate as > many objects of that type Class you need. > > It was definitely a long missing solution that was addressed in nifi 1.5.0 > and with the flow registry. > > Also, we should just remove the root group remote port limitation. It was > an implementation choice long before we had multi tenant auth and now it no > longer makes sense to force root group only. Still though the above > scenario of versioned flows and the flow registry solves the main problem. > > > thanks > > On Sat, May 12, 2018, 9:22 PM Charlie Meyer < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > We do this often by leveraging the variable registery and the expression > > language to make components be more dynamic and reusable > > > > -Charlie > > > > On Sat, May 12, 2018, 20:01 scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Devs, > > > > > > I've got a question about an observation I've had while working with > > > NiFi. Is there a better way to re-use process groups similar to how > > > programming languages reference functions, libraries, classes, or > > > pointers. I know about remote process groups and templates, but neither > > > do exactly what I was thinking. RPGs are great, but I think the output > > > goes to the root canvas level, and you have to have have connectors all > > > the way back up your flow hierarchy, and that's not practical. > > > Ultimately, I'm looking for an easy way to re-use process groups that > > > contain common logic in many of my flows, so that I reduce the amount > of > > > places I have to change. > > > > > > Hopefully that made sense. Appreciate your thoughts. > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > >
