Hi Lars, I think the issue is that the classes you referenced are not formally part of nifi-api, they are technically part of a controller service API. So the reference to 'unstable' doesn't really mean that record processing itself is unstable, it refers more to the API guarantees that are being made for those people developing custom components.
I believe that our stance is that we only guarantee backwards compatibility on minor releases for stuff in nifi-api, although we do generally strive to not break controller service APIs if possible. As an example, we would never put out a 1.x release that change a method signature in the Processor interface since this comes from nifi-api and impacts all existing processors (both those that are part of the nifi distribution, as well as any custom processors people have developed). We could in theory put out a 1.x release that changes a method signature in RecordReader since that is not part of nifi-api, and anyone who has implemented a processor that uses a record reader would have to update their code to adjust to changes. In practice we would try to avoid this if possible by introducing new methods with default implementations deprecating old methods. So long story short... personally I think it is fine to remove those statements, but I wanted to highlight that technically I believe a controller service API could be changed in a non-backward compatible manner even without those statements, but maybe others have different thoughts. -Bryan On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:21 AM Lars Francke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > a customer stumbled upon these comments in RecordSetWriterFactory, > RecordReader, WriteResult and RecordSetWriter: > > "PLEASE NOTE: This interface is still considered 'unstable' and may change > in a non-backward-compatible manner between minor or incremental releases > of NiFi." > > Is this still true? I found a Mailing list Thread from ~2018 claiming it's > been stable for a while. > > If so: Would you mind me creating a Jira & Pull Request to remove those > comments? They can be confusing. > > Cheers, > Lars
