Hey @Ali - check this out - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1286.
Obviously, we're not going to have all of the same timestamp properties in
the unified topology since there are no more splitters and joiners, but
this should fill in the outstanding gaps around the adapter timestamps. I
see th
Thanks for pointing that out Ali. I created a ticket to track it -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1889
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:51 PM Ali Nazemian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One thing to point out here is there were a few timestamp fields that
> exist for Split-join enrichment topology tha
Hi,
One thing to point out here is there were a few timestamp fields that
exist for Split-join enrichment topology that haven't been made to the
unified one. For example, there is no threat intel bolt timestamp. There
might be some SLA related use cases regarding these timestamp fields that
might
This is excellent work, Mike and long overdue. Thanks for doing this
05.11.2018, 16:46, "Michael Miklavcic" :
> The PR has now been merged into master and closed.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklav...@gmail
The PR has now been merged into master and closed.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
>
> I made the unified enrichment topology th
PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked the
split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the documentation. I
think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new default
and then move to re
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks
Mohan DV
On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com" wrote:
+1 totally agree.
Jon
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian
wrote:
> Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>
> On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" wrote:
+1 totally agree.
Jon
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian
wrote:
> Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>
> On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick
Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" wrote:
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella wrote:
> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet w
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella wrote:
> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet wrote:
> >
> > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > > obsolete by the unified topology.
>
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet wrote:
>
> > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > obsolete by the unified topology.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > michael.mikla
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet wrote:
> +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> obsolete by the unified topology.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fellow Metronians,
> >
> > We've had th
+1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
obsolete by the unified topology.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fellow Metronians,
>
> We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of months
> now, it
13 matches
Mail list logo
