Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/251
---
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 enable
Github user adamonduty commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/256#issuecomment-194653627
@olegz I've added an `addtionalDetails.html` file as requested. Please let
me know if anything else needs addressed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can repl
Joe,
I tagged this one that I've been closing in on, and was just finishing up.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1481
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Team,
>
> It is time to start pulling in for the Apache NiFi 0.6.0 release to
> keep with our previously suggested ca
Github user apiri commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/265#issuecomment-194558529
Attached patch to the JIRA issue. Will let this PR run to confirm
successful build.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply a
Github user apiri commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/265#issuecomment-194557870
Hmm... not sure why the previous commit got folded into mine.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well.
GitHub user apiri opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/265
NIFI-1488 fixes
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/apiri/incubator-nifi NIFI-1488-fixes
Alternatively you can review and apply these c
Team,
It is time to start pulling in for the Apache NiFi 0.6.0 release to
keep with our previously suggested cadence. There are already a lot
of really nice improvements/bug fixes on there and some nice new
features. We do have about 23 outstanding JIRAs assigned that are
open.
Most appear to b
Github user bbende closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/264
---
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 enable
Github user rickysaltzer commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/253#issuecomment-194504062
rebased and pushed to `master`. Thanks again, @lordjc.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
NiFi Community,
Originally discussed in January [1], the MiNiFi agent model was met with
positive feedback. I would like to propose a concerted effort toward the
execution on the ideas presented and establish a basis for incorporation of
the feedback received from, and collaboration with, the comm
Github user rickysaltzer commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/253#issuecomment-194484021
just built on my local machine, as well. I'll go ahead and rebase and then
push to `master` today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user lordjc commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/253#issuecomment-194475452
It builds with tests successfully on my local system.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If you
Github user rickysaltzer commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/253#issuecomment-194465576
@alopresto I'm rebuilding now from scratch.
---
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 p
Github user alopresto commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/253#issuecomment-194465114
@lordjc if we are confident the result of
`UserGroupInformation.isSecurityEnabled()` does not change between class
instantiation and `customValidate()` execution, I am o
Github user lordjc commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/253#issuecomment-194448347
@alopresto
Thank you for the feedback.
Turning kerberos on and off for a cluster is a non trivial task, but if
that did in fact occur one would need to update all o
Josh,
Happy to help, could you provide some more details around the use case? For
example the JSON content (scrubbed if need be of course) and a stack trace
or other logging/bulletin text about the error?
Regarding PutFile to view output, an alternative is to use a LogAttribute
processor with the
To whom it may concern,
I am trying to create a process that will export data from a MySQL database
using a select query. This data will in turn be used to either update or insert
records of another MySQL database. At the moment my process in NiFi includes
the flowing Process flow:
ExecuteSQL
Github user jvwing commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/224#issuecomment-194414769
Thanks for the updates, @mans2singh , I think this pull request looks good
(and works good).
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have you
Agreed we need a mechanism. I know you're just using that as an example,
I've had cases for CL isolation as well. I was referring to the compromise
because you said the "bundle" needs CL when only the CS does, and the CS
need not be in that bundle. I can see a Kerberos/UGI service being used by
ton
Matt
We are (I am) working on Kerberos CS, but keep in mind that I am using Kerberos
and UGI only as an example. There are many other cases like this. The bottom
line is we need a mechanism to provide CL isolation per instance when it’s due.
Oleg
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Matt Burgess wro
Why not make UGI/Kerb stuff a Controller Service? Each CS instance can have
class loader isolation and can be shared among processor instances that want to
share UGI/Kerb/service config?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky
> wrote:
>
> Tony
> Interesting choice
Tony
Interesting choice of words “at the discretion. . .”. That can certainly be a
happy medium as I do agree that 90% of them won’t need that. Further more, the
extensions that are developed/managed by NiFi we can apply “the discretion”
behind the scenes, thus not putting a burden on the DFM. F
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/216
---
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 enable
Joe,
I had similar thoughts about the additional resource usage this adds, which
is why I thought exploring the downsides was apropos. I think one thing I
initially thought was that a lot of the "simple" core processors wouldn't
gain any advantage by doing this... but honestly, I'm not sure what is
There are clear benefits to having the notion of extension isolation
be as narrow as a single instance of that extension in the flow.
However, there are also some important questions that must be
answered.
A quick one that comes to mind is the idea of a classloader per
extension instance means the
Well, sure there is the obvious; two instances of the same NAR = two instances
of the same class in memory. But that’s a very small price to pay when
realizing that current state of things can simply render NiFi un-usable. In
fact we already had similar issue with HDFS processors
(https://issue
26 matches
Mail list logo
