Hi Bryan, thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with you re: backwards compatibility.
In that case I'll create a patch next week. Cheers, Lars On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 6:31 PM Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
