[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-851?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16841502#comment-16841502
 ] 

Mr TheSegfault edited comment on MINIFICPP-851 at 5/16/19 4:45 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

+1 to this. I would love us to get to a day where we can break the NanoFi 
reliance on MiNiFi and only have a reliance of MiNiFi on NanoFi. 

My opinion has been that something like this should be a 1.0 effort, much like 
the efforts in Apache NiFi 2.0....though I suppose it could be staged to 
eventually get to a certain point in stages. 


was (Author: phrocker):
+1 to this. I would love us to get to a day where we can break the NanoFi 
reliance on MiNiFi and only have a reliance of MiNiFi on NanoFi. 

My opinion has been that something like this should be a 1.0 effort, much like 
the efforts in Apache NiFi 2.0. 

> Restructure both client and server socket codes in Nanofi and MiNiFi
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MINIFICPP-851
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-851
>             Project: Apache NiFi MiNiFi C++
>          Issue Type: Epic
>    Affects Versions: 0.6.0
>            Reporter: Arpad Boda
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: network
>
> Current issues:
>  * MiNiFi Clientsocket and Nanofi cpeer codes have a lot in common.
>  * Clientsocket's implementation contain a lot of serversocket-related code.
>  * LystenSysLog processor has a built-in socket handling instead of using 
> ServerSocket. 
> Goals:
>  * MiNiFi ClientSocket should only be a wrapper around client socket 
> implementation in Nanofi. As Nanofi impl. is platform-independent, this could 
> make the current duplication go away, too. 
>  * Listen related codes (bind, accept, etc) should be moved to ServerSocket.
>  * Both client- and server side API should provide interface to set some 
> socket properties (TCP/UDP, network interface, listen ip).
>  * ListenSysLog should depend on ServerSocket instead of having a socket 
> implementation in the processor.
>  * ListenSysLog should have properties to bind only a specific interface/IP, 
> opening syslog port on all available interfaces may raise security concerns. 
>  
> [~bakaid]  [~phrocker] please feel free to extend with your remarks. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to