Russ Yeah the flow registry is a key part of it. But also now you can download the flow definition in JSON (upload i think is there now too). Templates offered a series of challenges such as we store them in the flow definition which has made flows massive in an unintended way which isn't fun for cluster behavior.
We have a couple cases where we headed down a particular concept and came up with better approaches later. We need to reconcile these with the benefit of hindsight, and while being careful to be not overly disruptive to existing users, to reduce the codebase/maintenance burden and allow continued evolution of the project. Thanks On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 7:43 AM Russell Bateman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe, > > I apologize for the off-topic intrusion, but what replaces templates? > The Registry? Templates rocked and we have used them since 0.5.x. > > Russ > > On 7/23/21 8:31 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > > David, > > > > I think this is a highly reasonable approach and such a focus will > > greatly help make a 2.0 release far more approachable to knock out. > > Not only that but tech debt reduction would help make work towards > > major features we'd think about in a 'major release' sense more > > approachable. > > > > We should remove all deprecated things (as well as verify we have the > > right list). We should remove/consider removal of deprecated concepts > > like templates. We should consider whether we can resolve the various > > ways we've handled what are now parameters down to one clean approach. > > We should remove options in the nifi.properties which turn out to > > never be used quite right (if there are). There is quite a bit we can > > do purely in the name of tech debt reduction. > > > > Lots to consider here but I think this is the right discussion. > > > > Than ks > > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 7:26 AM Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm a +1 for this... Not sure if this falls under "Removing Deprecated > >> Components", but I think we should also look at anything that has been > >> marked as deprecated throughout the code base as a candidate for > >> removal. There are quite a few classes, methods, properties, etc that > >> have been waiting for a chance to be removed. > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:13 AM David Handermann > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Team, > >>> > >>> With all of the excellent work that many have contributed to NiFi over the > >>> years, the code base has also accumulated some amount of technical debt. A > >>> handful of components have been marked as deprecated, and some components > >>> remain in the code base to support integration with old versions of > >>> various > >>> products. Following the principles of semantic versioning, introducing a > >>> major release would provide the opportunity to remove these deprecated and > >>> unsupported components. > >>> > >>> Rather than focusing the next major release on new features, what do you > >>> think about focusing on technical debt removal? This approach would not > >>> make for the most interesting release, but it provides the opportunity to > >>> clean up elements that involve breaking changes. > >>> > >>> Focusing on technical debt, at least three primary goals come to mind for > >>> the next major release: > >>> > >>> 1. Removal of deprecated and unmaintained components > >>> 2. Require Java 11 as the minimum supported version > >>> 3. Transition internal date and time handling to JSR 310 java.time > >>> components > >>> > >>> *Removing Deprecated Components* > >>> > >>> Removing support for older and deprecated components provides a great > >>> opportunity to improve the overall security posture when it comes to > >>> maintaining dependencies. The OWASP dependency plugin report currently > >>> generates 50 MB of HTML for questionable dependencies, many of which are > >>> related to old versions of various libraries. > >>> > >>> As a starting point, here are a handful of components and extension > >>> modules > >>> that could be targeted for removal in a major version: > >>> > >>> - PostHTTP and GetHTTP > >>> - ListenLumberjack and the entire nifi-lumberjack-bundle > >>> - ListenBeats and the entire nifi-beats-bundle > >>> - Elasticsearch 5 components > >>> - Hive 1 and 2 components > >>> > >>> *Requiring Java 11* > >>> > >>> Java 8 is now over seven years old, and NiFi has supported general > >>> compatibility with Java 11 for several years. NiFi 1.14.0 incorporated > >>> internal improvements specifically related to TLS 1.3, which allowed > >>> closing out the long-running Java 11 compatibility epic NIFI-5174. Making > >>> Java 11 the minimum required version provides the opportunity to address > >>> any lingering edge cases and put NiFi in a better position to support > >>> current Java versions. > >>> > >>> *JSR 310 for Date and Time Handling* > >>> > >>> Without making the scope too broad, transitioning internal date and time > >>> handling to use DateTimeFormatter instead of SimpleDateFormat would > >>> provide > >>> a number of advantages. The Java Time components provide much better > >>> clarity when it comes to handling localized date and time representations, > >>> and also avoid the inherent confusion of java.sql.Date extending > >>> java.util.Date. Many internal components, specifically Record-oriented > >>> processors and services, rely on date parsing, leading to confusion and > >>> various workarounds. The pattern formats of SimpleDateFormat and > >>> DateTimeFormatter are very similar, but there are a few subtle > >>> differences. > >>> Making this transition would provide a much better foundation going > >>> forward. > >>> > >>> *Conclusion* > >>> > >>> Thanks for giving this proposal some consideration. Many of you have been > >>> developing NiFi for years and I look forward to your feedback. I would be > >>> glad to put together a more formalized recommendation on Confluence and > >>> write up Jira epics if this general approach sounds agreeable to the > >>> community. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> David Handermann >
