+1 binding.
Tested the graph flow (added the include-graph profile) and a dockerized
cluster. LGTM.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:32 PM Joe Witt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to be calling this vote for the source release of Apache NiFi
> nifi-1.10.0.
>
> As they say 'third time's a charm'.
>
>
Joe,
It is hard to say how much value transit URI would bring to clarify a RECEIVE.
For example a RECEIVE with transit URI of https: could be either a
GetHTTP (i.e. active) or ListenHTTP (i.e. passive)
but your idea of "a metadata item specifying active vs passive" is a very
clever way to
While building 1.10.0-rc3, I wanted to experiment with the compilation and
runtime variants using Java 8 and Java 11. The summary of this experiment
was:
Comp: Java 8 Run: Java 8 => SUCCESS
Comp: Java 8 Run: Java 11 => SUCCESS
Comp: Java 11 Run: Java 8 => FAILURE
Comp: Java 11 Run:
+1 (binding)
Signatures verified.
Hashes verified.
Tests pass, source builds cleanly.
I used both Java 11 & Java 8 to build.
I did run into a problem compiling with Java 11 and running with Java 8. I
don't believe this was a goal of the Java 11 compatibility changes, so
nothing unexpected about
Hi All,
I'm trying to setup Minifi C2 with a connection to the Nifi API to pull
templates and distribute them to MINIFI nodes. In my case the NIFI server is
running in certificate / SSL auth mode (using the NIFI toolkit for testing). Is
it possible to get C2 to connect to the API in this case?
Adam
Interesting. Id say though that where we are now for nifi 1.x is perfect.
That matrix you shared as currently working seems ideal.
For nifi 2.x we cut bait on Java 8 and go with latest stable Java at that
time (11, 13)
thanks
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:51 PM Adam Taft wrote:
> While
+1 (binding)
Verified signatures, hashes, build, etc. Tested both standalone and
clustered and secure and unsecured.
Thanks for RMing Joe!
Matt
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:51 PM Adam Taft wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Signatures verified.
> Hashes verified.
> Tests pass, source builds cleanly.
> I
Hi,
My Name is Rifat. I am a Software Engineer at ESPN/Disney. I have been using
Nifi for almost one year now and We have a 10 Node Nifi Cluster setup in our
production environment. As per the best practices document:
I like the idea of creating PULL as a type. In fact, I'd propose that there
are three scenarios here:
RECEIVE - Passively acquire in a sort of hand-off situation. Ex: Kafka
subscription
PULL - Direct operations to seek out and fetch something in a targeted
fashion. Ex. GetHttp
QUERY - Go looking
+1 (non-binding)
Deployed cluster in Azure and smoke tested a fairly complicated data flow.
Verified the fixes for the Azure EventHub Processor that were pulled into
RC3 are working as expected.
Shayne
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:59 PM Jeff Zemerick wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Built and ran
+1 (non-binding)
Built and ran successfully and built custom processor with 1.10.0
dependency and successfully uploaded NAR to NiFi Registry 0.5.0.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:06 PM Mark Payne wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Was able to build and verify that all of the Jiras that I raised last time
>
Right, I agree with your perspective.
Just note, however, that this stance will require the RM to create the 1.x
convenience binary with Java 8 only. It will be incumbent on the RM to
ensure they build with Java 8, because if they accidentally build with Java
11, the binary distribution won't
+1 (binding)
Was able to build and verify that all of the Jiras that I raised last time
around have been addressed in this RC. Left a cluster of 10 nodes running for a
day or two, pretty heavily taxed, and ran into no issues.
Thanks
-Mark
> On Oct 30, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Matt Gilman wrote:
>
Ah yep good point. I think we have that somewhere but will def add that to
release guide.
thanks
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:26 PM Adam Taft wrote:
> Right, I agree with your perspective.
>
> Just note, however, that this stance will require the RM to create the 1.x
> convenience binary with
14 matches
Mail list logo
