Re: Is there a roadmap for Nifi V2 ?

If we wanted to evaluate if the NiFi 2.0-M2 release is sufficiently production worthy for our individual use cases, is there a list of the remaining items/known key gaps/etc to get in so we can make a decision if those remaining items are noteworthy to our cases? Thanks, Ryan On Mon, Mar 11, 2024

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…

t soon. At least a milestone > >> > release of it for people to work with. There is a big change needed > to > >> get > >> > rid of the flow.xml.gz in favor of the json form and that is in > >> progress. > >> > I am not sure offhand whether templ

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 21…

I think NiFi 2.x going to Java 21 for all the reasons outlined makes a lot of sense. Is there a timeline for 2.x? On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:00 AM Pierre Villard wrote: > Thanks Joe, it makes total sense and I agree that the ones that would > likely be slow at adopting Java 21 would not go to Ni

Re: [discuss] nifi 2.0 and Java 17...

The major issue for our deployments would be the removal of Nashorn as well. Would GraalVM or an alternative be considered as a part of an initial NiFi 2.0 release? Thanks, Ryan On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 12:38 PM Joe Witt wrote: > Team, > > Looking like we will update the NiFi 2.0 goals to be bas

Re: [discuss] NiFi 1.20 and NiFi 2.0

I second some calendar guessing. There's been releases every 1-2 months for a while now. I'd be curious what a guess at a gap would be between 1.20.0 and a GA of 2.0.0. Thanks, Ryan On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 4:50 PM Adam Taft wrote: > Joe / team, > > Question on this. I think it would be helpful

Re: [DISCUSS] Finalizing Release Goals for NiFi 2.0

The Proposed Release Goals and Deprecated Components and Features pages look great. I appreciate the minor leap of Java 11 as a 2.x requirement vs Java 17. Maybe once there is a timeline, the 2.x branch could be scheduled only to be alive for a minor amount of time... a year, etc. Then a later 2.

Re: NiFi Slack, IRC?

://nifi.apache.org/mailing_lists.html > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:45 AM Ryan Hendrickson > wrote: > > > > Can anyone request access to the Slack channel? > > > > Ryan > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:11 PM Joe Witt wrote: > > > > > All > > >

Re: NiFi Slack, IRC?

Can anyone request access to the Slack channel? Ryan On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:11 PM Joe Witt wrote: > All > > To close the loop here the invite link Keith was trying was sending > him in circles. We sent him the correct one and he is now in. And > we're fixing the invite link in the readme pa

Re: [EXT] Re: Dark mode

I was in a meeting demo'ing a dark-mode tool with the lights off in a conf rm. Then we flipped to Nifi to show where the data came from and blinded everyone by the light! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5424 +1 for a dark mode. Ryan On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:54 PM Peter Wicks (pw

Re: Configurable default connection Prioritizer

to be recursively applied to existing connections. > > Do we want to introduce a new context menu item for process groups, > "Connection Settings" or something similar? > > Is there a JIRA ticket for this proposed new feature? > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:48 PM

Re: Configurable default connection Prioritizer

to differentiate with prioritizing > > across all queues. > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 3:22 PM Ryan Hendrickson > > wrote: > > > > > > I see two things as particularly useful... > > > > > > 1) Default Prioritizer for new Relatio

Re: Configurable default connection Prioritizer

priority, it would > > affect all flows, each may have different priority rules. However, if > this > > could be applied only at the process group level, it might have legs. > > > > You can follow the initial approach to such a mechanism in the JIRA > ticket. > >

Re: Configurable default connection Prioritizer

s a good idea. Would likely need to approach > it at a more flow/process group centric level. > > Thanks > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:34 AM Ryan Hendrickson < > ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This would be very helpful. > > > > R

Re: Configurable default connection Prioritizer

This would be very helpful. Ryan On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:51 PM Salvatore Foss wrote: > Hi, > > Do you see much value in being able to specify an instance-wide (or > cluster-wide) default prioritizer for all connections that do not have one > manually set? > > Along with the the following prop

Re: Nifi UI slow

Deepak, We noticed moving from 1.11.x to 1.13.2 the UI within the cluster slowed down dramatically. I'd be interested in all the details Joe mentioned - either here or the users's mailing list. Thanks, Ryan On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:33 PM Joe Witt wrote: > Deepak > > This thread is probably

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

ey include use cases and details that may not occur to > a developer who just picks it up. It is a great way to contribute! > > From: Ryan Hendrickson > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > Date: August 6, 2021 at 03:23:43 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiF

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

e requirements / use cases > > From: Ryan Hendrickson > > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org > Date: August 4, 2021 at 01:14:23 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals > > I'll preface with what I'm about to say is not rooted in

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 2.0 Release Goals

I'll preface with what I'm about to say is not rooted in any real understanding of the lift required or other customer experiences... We have used NiFi for a long time and are excited for what new features may lay ahead in the 2.x line. ---After having written this, I think our succinct pain poin

Re: NIFI-7646 - Improve performance of MergeContent

rformance > improvement of 20x in reading the content, that won’t mean a 20x > improvement in overall throughout. > > But it sure won’t hurt! :) > > -Mark > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 21, 2021, at 8:34 PM, Ryan Hendrickson < > ryan.andrew.hendrick...@

Funnel Performance

Hi everyone, I'm curious what the performance impact is of adding a number of funnels. For example: We had 3 relationships with 10 million flow files in each relationship going to a Funnel to create a single Relationship into a Merge Content Processor. Would it be 'more' performant to just

NIFI-7646 - Improve performance of MergeContent

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7646 - Improve performance of MergeContent / others that read content of many small FlowFiles Hi, In reference to the ticket above, released in 1.13, the descriptions says "if the FlowFile is small, say 200 bytes, the result is that we perform 2+ disk

Re: Dropping support for Java 8

Any idea of when a NiFi 2 line would happen - eg. within 2021, not til 2022? Thanks, Ryan On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 4:34 PM José Luis Pedrosa wrote: > Hi All > > thanks for the replies, I may say some quite incorrect things as I am new > to NiFi. I see that there are two docker images: > > https:

Re: [EXT] Re: NiFi 2.0 Roadmap

Resurrecting an old thread here... Any updates on a 2.0 or new major release of NiFi? Thanks, Ryan On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:14 AM ski n wrote: > "a Flow Registry that can hold extensions and we can then make nifi 2.0 > fundamentally about distributing nifi as a kernel (small as possible) and >

Re: NiFi PriorityAttributePrioritizer doesn't prioritize all items in a queue.

sult you’ll be able to handle the > prioritization better. But it means that you’ll be holding more FlowFiles > in memory and as a result can encounter OutOfMemoryError easily if your > heap is not large enough. > > Thanks > -Mark > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jir

Re: NiFi PriorityAttributePrioritizer doesn't prioritize all items in a queue.

older > versions with queue swapping, but since you linked to current code, I’m > assuming you’re experiencing this on 1.11.4? > > > Andy LoPresto > alopre...@apache.org > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com > He/Him > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D E

NiFi PriorityAttributePrioritizer doesn't prioritize all items in a queue.

Hello, We've noticed that the PriorityAttributePrioritizer doesn't prioritize all items in a queue. We'll get a queue of 50,000 items in it, then a 50,001 item will be added with a #1 priority. This item won't be prioritized above lower priority items in the queue. We did some research

Re: Potential 1.11.X showstopper

Joe, We're running: - OpenJDK Java 1.8.0_242 - NiFi 1.11.0 - CentOS Linux 7.7.1908 We're seeing this across a dozen NiFi's with the same setup. To reproduce the issue, Generate Flow Files 100GB across a couple million files -> Site to Site -> Receive data -> Merge Content. We ha

Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a NiFi Registry 0.4.0 release?

> > change some API since it has been released, and so far the NiFi side > > > of the work hasn't been started yet. > > > > > > 2) Wait until more of the extension registry work is finalized and use > > > that as the driver of when to release 0.4.0

Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a NiFi Registry 0.4.0 release?

Bryan, Is there a new GUI part of the registry for the extension registry work in master? I compiled 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT and didn't see anything immediately. You mentioned docs and sys admin stuff... Could you point me in the quick-start path if I wanted to try to kick-the-tires a little on this? T

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate processors who have Record oriented counterpart?

We often don't use the Record Processors because of the Schema requirement and complexity to use the LookupRecord processor. I'll refer to this email in the NiFi mailing list: "GetMongo - Pass-on Initial FlowFile?"... There were suggestions to use the LookupRecord processor, but ultimately it coul

Re: Include Section for Processor Breaking Changes in Changelog

ks > > like this was not in the 1.5.0 guidance. > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Migration+Guidance > > > > -Bryan > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ryan Hendrickson > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, &

Include Section for Processor Breaking Changes in Changelog

Hi, I recently upgraded a NiFi from 1.4 to 1.8 and found a breaking change. The ExecuteStreamCommand processor, in NiFi 1.5, introduced a new relationship for errors (NIFI-4559 ). The consequence: We missed that 1 of our many processors moved in

Re: [discuss] should we do a nifi 1.7.1 release?

e automatically adjusted > by maven without the release manager doing anything special. So rarely > will this value need to be manually set. In the event of a 'major' or > 'minor' bump though the entire relevant source tree will need to be > adjusted. > > > >

Re: [discuss] should we do a nifi 1.7.1 release?

As a user of NiFi, and someone converting things to use more standard processors, vs writing custom ones, I'd prefer smaller releases, or possible a release that only updates Processors with the bug fixes and improvements that went into them vs having to diff the configuration files each upgrade.

Re: Threading in a NiFi Processor

That may work.. Can you call ProcessContext.yield() anywhere with in the processor, or only at the end of the onTrigger()? flowfile --> processor --> output I thought if you called the ProcessContext.yield() you were intending to end the the processor's responsibility portion and output.. On Th

Threading in a NiFi Processor

I have always stayed away from doing any threading inside a NiFi processor. However, I recently came across a use-case where I'm calling a web service from within a custom Nifi Processor and I don't want to overwhelm the web service. I'd like to instrument a sleep in the onTrigger() or process()

Re: AWS PutS3Object Inconsistent Logs vs Default Protocol

Cool - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-797 On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Certainly. Please do file a JIRA for it of course and if you run into > anything needing help just fire away. > > Thanks! > > Joe > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11

AWS PutS3Object Inconsistent Logs vs Default Protocol

Hi all, If agreed upon, I don't mind putting the fix in, but it won't be til Sunday or next week.. The PutS3Object reports to provenance that it uses an HTTP url, when the default for the S3 is actually HTTPS. This makes it pretty misleading as to what is happening. This is verified HT

Re: nifi-0.3.0 release

Will the Amazon AWS processors fix make this release? On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Mark Payne wrote: > Joe, > > Not a problem. I updated JIRA to show the tickets that will go into 0.3.0. > > Thanks > -Mark > > > > Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:10:20 -040