Re: Custom NAR Class Loader Issue

I may have something to test that ;) I’ll let you know, else my pr will get the ‘why are you updating the sdk version’ comment. On March 16, 2018 at 15:57:21, Bryan Bende (bbe...@gmail.com) wrote: This should be better going forward once the 1.6.0 release is out.

Re: Custom NAR Class Loader Issue

This should be better going forward once the 1.6.0 release is out. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4936 On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Otto Fowler wrote: > This is also a problem for new AWS processors, say if you use a newer aws > java sdk core in a

Re: Custom NAR Class Loader Issue

This is also a problem for new AWS processors, say if you use a newer aws java sdk core in a dependency but also have to depend on the nifi-aws-nar. On March 2, 2018 at 13:40:21, Bryan Bende (bbe...@gmail.com) wrote: Doug, I think the only solution is what you proposed about fixing the

Re: Will you accept contributions in Scala?

Sorry for the late response, but the point about the Extension Repo making this a moot point is an important one. The idea that you need to get your processor into the main codebase to have it be known and useful is something that is easier to overcome than a language war. On February 13, 2018

Re: AWS Processors and Proxy User/Password

Can you please explain how you do that? I have now seen https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2016 which adds pretty much what I think is required. On March 16, 2018 at 15:05:10, Charlie Meyer (char...@charliemeyer.net) wrote: For these, I have used the AWS Credentials Provider controller

Re: AWS Processors and Proxy User/Password

For these, I have used the AWS Credentials Provider controller service -Charlie ᐧ Charlie Meyer On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Otto Fowler wrote: > Does anyone know why the AWS Processors support proxy host and port but not > user and password as InvokeHttp does? >

AWS Processors and Proxy User/Password

Does anyone know why the AWS Processors support proxy host and port but not user and password as InvokeHttp does? ottO

Re: Finding Performance bottleneck issue

That seems like a very reasonable use case. You said: > I see that my processor is actually queuing up records at source. Are you saying that the processor isn't able to process them that quickly such that you're seeing a big backlog in the input queue? On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Milan

Re: Finding Performance bottleneck issue

Hi Mike, My processor is processing windows Text event as below and creating a JSON out of it. Also I am applying simple JoltTransformer (Simple just Shift and Default) to convert to different JSON (no hierarchy) . Output have the following: 1. Original text 2. Converted JSON 3. JOLT

Re: Finding Performance bottleneck issue

Milan, Can you share some details about where you are running into problems? Like a basic description of what it's trying to do? On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Milan Das wrote: > I have a custom processor, it works as expected. But I feel there is some > performance

Re: Finding Performance bottleneck issue

Milan, We dont offer any load testing specific tooling. You can though write integration tests which setup a more complete system. The most common model i see people do though for true performance/bottleneck analysis though is setup a running nifi instance with a flow through your custom

Finding Performance bottleneck issue

I have a custom processor, it works as expected. But I feel there is some performance measure need to be done. I see that my processor is actually queuing up  records at source. Is there a run a load  test and do performance measure for Custom Processor? Regards, Milan Das

Re: PutMongo 1.3.0 - Upsert issue

It need be _id. In case of it being generated automatically, it will be tough to keep track. It can be any valid MongoDB filter query, if I’m right. So the query should be: { , “$set” : { “FieldA” : “New FieldA value” } } On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 at 5:07 PM, Mike Thomsen

Re: PutMongo 1.3.0 - Upsert issue

I noticed that your update document didn't have an update key in it. The default lookup key is _id so you'd need something like this: { "_id": "ID_HERE", "$set": { "new_field": 1 } } On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:05 AM, fabe_bdx wrote: > Dear Pierre, > >