For the specific case of "host name of the AMQP processors", EL support for
that property was added to NiFi in NIFI-5489 [1] which will be released
with NiFi 1.8.0 (available real soon!)

[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5489

-- Mike


On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:06 PM Pierre Villard <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> There is a JIRA [1] about this idea and, as Joe said, we need to carefully
> think about the implications. Unless we can do something nice and backward
> compatible, that could be something for NiFi 2.0.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5367
>
> Pierre
>
> Le mer. 24 oct. 2018 à 20:59, Joe Witt <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> > Jon,
> >
> > There is very little overhead really.  The answer more generally has
> > to do with history.  Expression language was added later in the game
> > and there can be different scopes to what a given EL statement has
> > access to.  Some EL are evaluated against flowfiles and some arent.
> > We didn't have a good way to show users this information though this
> > has recently improved.  It also has to do with 'evaluation time'
> > meaning processors might evaluate some properties frequently/while
> > executing a task (as would be the case when EL statements have a given
> > flowfile in scope) or during enabling/scheduling such as pulling a
> > property value they intend to honor throughout an entire runtime.
> >
> > I suspect at this point that we can make most properties (not
> > enumerations most likely) EL enabled.  But, each one requires
> > review/consideration to ensure the processor is coded to use it
> > correctly.
> >
> > Alternatively, we could explore making all text entry fields allow
> > users to explicitly state 'this is a variable and here is the variable
> > name' (but in a cool UI way) and then the actual value used would come
> > from the variable registry for that process group.  This would be
> > something we can do across the board as it wouldnt' change the
> > processor's logic/behavior at all.  Variables get set at and retained
> > throughout the life of a processor run.  If a used variable is changed
> > we'd automatically stop/start each impacted component/processor so it
> > wouldnt' require any additional review/changes in processor
> > properties.
> >
> > ThanksOn Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:46 PM Jonathan Meran
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello there,
> > > Regarding expression language properties, why aren't all or most
> > properties enabled by default.
> > >
> > > Is there substantial processor overhead on these?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On 10/24/18, 1:49 PM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Mark
> > >
> > >     There are two scenarios here to discuss:
> > >     1) What do to with sensitive properties
> > >     2) What to do with properties that dont allow expression language
> > statements
> > >
> > >     For #1 we dont send those properties into the registry and they are
> > >     set (properly) in each environment where the secret belongs.  All
> > good
> > >     as that doesn't change the flow definition.
> > >
> > >     For #2 we should just look at which properties are causing trouble
> > and
> > >     see about expression language enabling them.  So please share
> > >     precisely which ones you're hitting where that would help you out
> and
> > >     lets see what can be done.
> > >
> > >     Thanks
> > >     On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:39 PM Mark Littleton
> > >     <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >     >
> > >     > Hi Everyone,
> > >     >
> > >     > I'm currently doing a lot of work with Nifi and recently we have
> > been trying to come up with a solution to a problem. We installed Nifi
> > registry backed by our Git repository for versioning our flows. This has
> > worked out great for us as we can now track the version of our flows
> > correctly and make sure they are backed up in source control.
> > >     >
> > >     > However when we want to do deployment between our Development
> Nifi
> > cluster and our Qa Nifi cluster we have to ofcourse change some values.
> > These could be amqp queues, directories on the file system etc.
> > >     >
> > >     > So ofcourse we use variables so that we can configure the values
> > without it being detected as a change to the flow. A problem arises
> however
> > when we need to configure an option that does not support expression
> > language. For example the host name of the amqp processors.
> > >     >
> > >     > This leaves us in a situation where a change to the flow is
> > detected. The only real option I have as far as I can see is to clone the
> > flows and have one for each environment which I don't like at all.
> > >     >
> > >     > Is anyone else struggling with similar issues. If so how are you
> > handling It?
> > >     >
> > >     > Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to