Github user ijokarumawak commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1208
@markap14 I checked how Apache Flink uses SiteToSiteClient from
[NiFiSink](https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/d7b59d761601baba6765bb4fc407bcd9fd6a9387/flink-streaming-connectors/flink-connector-nifi/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/nifi/examples/NiFiSinkTopologyExample.java).
That is the same pattern Storm and Spark integration does.
I agree that third parties have been using SiteToSiteClient, but I don't
think many of them re-implement SiteToSiteClient actual implementation, rather
they just use the library. When they use it just to use SiteToSite protocol,
the URL is what they configured by themselves. So it should be fine. It doesn't
break anything.
For the case if a third party actually re-implementing a SiteToSiteClient
to customize it at lower level, excuse me, the comment you concerned about was
misleading. The interface hasn't been changed at all. What has changed by this
PR is the behavior of one implementation of SiteToSiteClient, that is the NiFi
default implementation, i.e. SocketClient and HttpClient. I didn't have to
change the comment in the first place. It doesn't break any other
SiteToSiteClient implementations written by third parties outside of NiFi
codebase.
So, to address your concern, I just removed the comment from
SiteToSiteClient.java. By doing so, the file becomes identical with the
previous version. So I amended the commit to keep it intact.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
