That was kinda where i got stuck and fell out on my branch/jira. Mike and I wanted to make a new controller service , without backward compatibility; and remove the duplicate driver/connection properties found in some of the processors.
I agree taking out all old stuff and making new controller service makes most sense. 4.x and 5.x should be mostly backwards compatible to 2&3.x with how it’s used within current processors. On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:49 AM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> wrote: > The abstraction is to isolate Java API changes, not protocol compatibility > Changing to the java-driver comes with a number of changes to the code (see > Steven's and my branches), if we can abstract that API it should lead to > more maintainable code in the future by not having to change any > processors, just the controller service implementation. > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:14 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > https://opensource.docs.scylladb.com/stable/using-scylla/drivers/cql-drivers/scylla-java-driver.html > > > > Directly quoting Scylla docs here: > > > > > The Scylla Java Driver is a drop-in replacement for the DataStax Java > > Driver. As such, no code changes are needed to use this driver. > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:13 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > I don't think we need to really "abstract above" the drivers because > the > > > Java DataStax driver appears to support 4.X all the way back to 2.X, as > > > well as the enterprise versions from DataStax > > > > > > https://docs.datastax.com/en/driver-matrix/docs/java-drivers.html > > > > > > Similar situation with Scylla. When I looked at the driver, it appeared > > to > > > copy verbatim the entire public API of that driver. So I think before > we > > > dive into abstractions, it's worth doing a bit more validation of these > > > details. IMHO, this might be a much lighter lift than anticipated. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:30 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Totally agree, that's what my branch does (see link in previous > email). > > >> The > > >> more I work with it, the more I think I can abstract it further from > > their > > >> JDBC-like API but I started with a bunch of delegate classes then I > > figure > > >> I'll see where I can consolidate to more abstract concepts. If I don't > > >> have > > >> to support Cassandra 3 with the new API, so much the better. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Matt > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:14 PM David Handermann < > > >> exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Matt et al, > > >> > > > >> > It is good to see the background effort on moving Cassandra > > >> > capabilities in a supportable direction. > > >> > > > >> > I think new Cassandra components will require a significant > departure > > >> > from current Controller Service abstractions. Right now, the > existing > > >> > service interface does not provide a clean abstraction from the > > >> > Cassandra library, which is part of the reason for the current > > >> > coupling to the legacy driver version. > > >> > > > >> > Following up from Joe's comments, it seems like the cleanest way > > >> > forward is to deprecate the current bundle on the 1.x branch, and > > >> > remove the current bundle from the main branch. That will provide a > > >> > clean slate for new Service and Processor implementations, without > > >> > concern for uncertain compatibility questions. > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > David Handermann > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:35 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > What do y'all think about removing the individual connection > > >> properties > > >> > > from the Cassandra processors for NiFi 2.0 and requiring a > > >> > > CassandraSessionProvider instead? I think we started doing that > > >> elsewhere > > >> > > (Elasticsearch maybe?), I noticed duplicate code in the > > >> > > CassandraSessionProvider and AbstractCassandraProcessor, if we > keep > > >> those > > >> > > properties I can refactor them into a utility class. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Matt > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:44 PM Steven Matison < > > >> steven.mati...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I got through quite a bit of work to enable 4.x… > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The 3.x pieces that were not backwards compatible is very edge > use > > >> > case and > > >> > > > could have been done slightly differently but with work around. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/steven-matison/nifi/tree/nifi-10120-1 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:30 PM Matt Burgess < > > mattyb...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Oops used the wrong email address so if there have been > > responses > > >> to > > >> > the > > >> > > > > Cassandra thread since mine I missed them, my bad! > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Matt Burgess < > > mattyb...@gmail.com > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I believe the CQL protocol is backwards compatible but the > > Java > > >> > API is > > >> > > > > > not. For example "com.datastax.driver.core.Session" is now > > >> > > > > > "com.datastax.oss.driver.api.core.session.Session" and there > > is > > >> no > > >> > more > > >> > > > > > "Cluster" class. Might be fairly trivial to fix though, if > > >> that's > > >> > the > > >> > > > > path > > >> > > > > > of least resistance. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:40 PM Joe Witt < > joe.w...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Matt > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> I dont know a ton about Cassandra but when I looked at > > >> > client/driver > > >> > > > > notes > > >> > > > > >> for 4+ it said it was compatible all the way back to 3.x. > > Not > > >> > sure > > >> > > > > what > > >> > > > > >> that means but it surely seems worth exploring. Also I > dont > > >> know > > >> > if > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > >> 4.x drivers get rid of the vulnerable bits. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> Thanks > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:39 AM Matt Burgess < > > >> > mattyb...@apache.org> > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > At the very least we should upgrade to Cassandra 3.11.6: > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-3.11.16/CHANGES.txt > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:31 PM Matt Burgess < > > >> > mattyb...@apache.org> > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > If the community agrees to get rid of Cassandra 3 > that'll > > >> > save me > > >> > > > > >> effort > > >> > > > > >> > > on the refactor after I add Cassandra 4 :) Otherwise > > those > > >> > > > > >> > > vulnerabilities would only be in a "new" Cassandra 3 > > >> services > > >> > NAR > > >> > > > > that > > >> > > > > >> > > would not be included in the convenience binary. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:28 PM Joe Witt < > > >> joe.w...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Mike, Matt, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Happy to hear you both have active efforts or are > > >> interested > > >> > in > > >> > > > > doing > > >> > > > > >> > so. > > >> > > > > >> > >> Can you help me understand more specifically what that > > >> means > > >> > for > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> current set of components? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> The CVE hits are concerning and long standing. > > Supporting > > >> > > > > Cassandra > > >> > > > > >> 3 > > >> > > > > >> > >> implies the current set of dependencies would remain > too > > >> > right? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Is the current set of components we have ones we want > to > > >> > retain? > > >> > > > > We > > >> > > > > >> > >> certainly need Cassandra components - but are the ones > > we > > >> > have > > >> > > > now > > >> > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > >> > >> right ones? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Thanks > > >> > > > > >> > >> Joe > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25 AM Matt Burgess < > > >> > > > > mattyb...@apache.org> > > >> > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > I'm actively working this, I pushed my branch up in > > case > > >> > anyone > > >> > > > > >> wants > > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > take a look [1]. The idea is to abstract the > Cassandra > > >> API > > >> > "up > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > >> > couple > > >> > > > > >> > >> > levels" and provide implementations for Cassandra 3, > > 4, > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> eventually > > >> > > > > >> > >> 5. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > For JDBC-like interfaces this is a PITA because of > the > > >> API > > >> > > > > >> (Statement, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > PreparedStatement, BoundStatement, ResultSet, etc.) > > but > > >> I'm > > >> > > > > hoping > > >> > > > > >> we > > >> > > > > >> > >> can > > >> > > > > >> > >> > find a common pattern for abstracting the > third-party > > >> > library > > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementation and API from the NiFi component > > >> (Processor, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > ControllerService, etc.) API. I think we're doing > > >> something > > >> > > > > similar > > >> > > > > >> > for > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Kafka? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Matt > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/mattyb149/nifi/tree/cassy4 > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:43 AM Mike Thomsen < > > >> > > > > >> mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > That’s been on my todo list for a little while but > > >> things > > >> > > > kept > > >> > > > > >> > coming > > >> > > > > >> > >> up. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I think I could get started on that now. Based on > my > > >> > initial > > >> > > > > >> > research > > >> > > > > >> > >> it > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > appears that scylla uses the exact same api as > > >> datastax > > >> > so > > >> > > > > >> > supporting > > >> > > > > >> > >> > both > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in a cql bundle should theoretically be fairly > easy. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Mar 14, 2024, at 6:18 PM, Joe Witt < > > >> > joew...@apache.org> > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Team, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Cassandra remains a really important system to > be > > >> able > > >> > to > > >> > > > > send > > >> > > > > >> > data > > >> > > > > >> > >> to. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > However, it seems like we've not maintained > these > > >> > well. We > > >> > > > > >> have > > >> > > > > >> > >> what > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > appears to be at least a full generation behind > on > > >> > client > > >> > > > > >> versions > > >> > > > > >> > >> (we > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > are > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > on 3x vs 4x which is the latest stable with 5x > > >> > apparently > > >> > > > > >> coming > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > shortly). > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > We have components to send data, query data, and > > use > > >> > > > > Cassandra > > >> > > > > >> as > > >> > > > > >> > a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > cache > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > store. We have older mechanisms for json/avro > and > > >> > publish > > >> > > > > >> > >> mechanisms > > >> > > > > >> > >> > for > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > records. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > The libraries we do have depend on outdated > > >> versions of > > >> > > > Guava > > >> > > > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > result > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > many CVE hits. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I am inclined to think we should deprecate the > 1.x > > >> > > > components > > >> > > > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > remove > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > them as-is from the 2.x line. Then re-introduce > > >> them > > >> > with > > >> > > > > >> record > > >> > > > > >> > >> only > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > interfaces and built against the latest stable > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Cassandra/Datastax/ScyllaDB > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > interfaces. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I'd love to hear thoughts from those closer to > > this > > >> > space > > >> > > > > both > > >> > > > > >> as > > >> > > > > >> > a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > user > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > and developer so we can make good next steps. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
