Re: MiNiFi C++ Data Provenance and Related Issues

2016-11-30 Thread Daniel Cave
I will not be continuing this discussion. I will leave it to others to pick it up if they feel it's needed. -- View this message in context: http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/MiNiFi-C-Data-Provenance-and-Related-Issues-tp14024p14058.html Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer

Re: MiNiFi C++ Data Provenance and Related Issues

2016-11-29 Thread Daniel Cave
"Yes but there can be other hubs too and in parallel." [Daniel]For MiNiFi C++ -> SystemA -> SystemB -> ... -> NiFi, if you dont want provenance to travel then I don't see it as an issue since the outgoing message would be identical to what you have now. If you feel it's going to be extremely

Re: MiNiFi C++ Data Provenance and Related Issues

2016-11-29 Thread Daniel Cave
As to Joe and Aldrin's concerns, I feel a bit more detail of what I had in mind might clear up some of the concerns and vagaries (all valid) that you mentioned. As Aldrin mentioned, to me provenance is not about metadata needed for routing. I don't doubt there are use cases for that, as Randy

Re: MiNiFi C++ Data Provenance and Related Issues

2016-11-29 Thread Daniel Cave
Since MiNiFi C++ requires completely new code (unlike the Java version), I don't see any reason we cant deviate where it makes requirement sense. If we move the provenance onto the flowfile, then your build issues and my stability issues can be simplified because the local provenance repo becomes

MiNiFi C++ Data Provenance and Related Issues

2016-11-28 Thread Daniel Cave
This is a break off from the discussion on the MiNiFi C++ 0.1.0 Release thread. I assume a hub and spoke NiFi/MiNiFi C++ architecture. As discussed on that thread, I am concerned about the existing choice for data provenance tracking and the implications it leads to as well as the current data

Re: [DISCUSS] MiNiFi C++ 0.1.0 Release

2016-11-22 Thread Daniel Cave
For me personally, I don't see a value add of MiNiFi Java. The needs that NiFi can't address MiNiFi Java can't either, so my focus is MiNiFi C++ as that is the hole that needs fixing, again in my opinion, so that is where my MiNiFi focus is going to be. As I go through things I am sure I will

Re: [DISCUSS] MiNiFi C++ 0.1.0 Release

2016-11-22 Thread Daniel Cave
Having been out of touch since MiNiFi C++ got added and just getting into it, is there a reason the C++ version is trying to follow closely the MiNiFi Java version rather than just insuring connectivity with NiFi? I have not been able to find alot of details regarding the roadmap for MiNiFi C++.