lordgamez commented on code in PR #2045:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/2045#discussion_r2536946794


##########
minifi-api/include/minifi-cpp/controllers/ProxyConfigurationServiceInterface.h:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+/**
+* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+ * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
+ * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+ * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+ * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+ * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+#pragma once
+
+#include "minifi-cpp/core/controller/ControllerService.h"
+#include "minifi-cpp/core/ControllerServiceApiDefinition.h"
+
+namespace org::apache::nifi::minifi::controllers {
+
+struct ProxyConfiguration {
+  std::string proxy_host;
+  std::optional<uint16_t> proxy_port;
+  std::optional<std::string> proxy_user;
+  std::optional<std::string> proxy_password;
+};

Review Comment:
   I'm not sure what would be the best way to define this to adjust it to the 
future C API. In the current form I think it will only be extended, so non of 
the current field will be changed in the future. We should discuss this how 
these cases should be handled in the future, because I think additional fields 
being added to a struct on the API can be common. We can either define some 
additional `reserved` fields on the C API for future extensions, we can define 
some accessors on the C API so the struct itself will not be published to the 
API, or we can just break it when needed if we can predict that it will not be 
changed for a long time. I think we still have some time for think about this 
as controller services will not be supported on the C API for a while. What do 
you suggest in this case?



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to