David
Fully supportive.
I'll take it a step further and indicate that I am now an advocate of
removing anything we have in our build related to running things or tests
written in Groovy. We should maintain the Groovy support for scripted
components but we should eliminate or replace any
I agree that tis toolkit can probably be removed in 2.0, and I would add
that tinycert.org provides another option for teams that need to setup
dev/test environments with trusted certificates.
Thanks,
Kevin
On Sep 13, 2023 at 11:46:19, David Handermann
wrote:
> Hi Isha,
>
> Thanks for the
Hi Isha,
Thanks for the helpful reply. I agree that the TLS Toolkit is most
convenient for development and lab deployments, and that's where we
should be able to provide some documentation for alternatives. The
existing Secure Cluster Walkthrough is a helpful reference for TLS
Toolkit usage, so
Hi David,
My primary use for the TLS toolkit is for lab deployments, mostly during
in-house trainings. I will miss the convenience of having a full set of
keystores and truststores ready to go with a single command, but then again, a
few commands in a script should replicate this well enough,
Team,
The TLS Toolkit provides a number of useful features for securing NiFi
server communication, but it also presents several maintenance
concerns. In light of other available tools, I am raising the question
of removing the TLS Toolkit from the repository as part of NiFi 2.0
technical debt
