tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1032869488
Let me try to explain in more detail my concerns through a demonstration.
Here's how I would imagine the propertyDescriptor-related duplication
removal:
1. We would need
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1032838536
LGTM merged to main
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1022303168
Regarding the ```getDriver()``` can you please help me understand which part
needs further explanation in this:
> The reason why we can't rely on the
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1022104731
The reason why we can't rely on the ```DBCPConnectionPool.getDriver()``` is
that the subsequent ```Class.forName()``` call uses the classloader of the
caller class. Which would be
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1021512187
I thought it's a good idea to separate ```.name()``` and
```.displayName()```. With that I'd leave the ```onConfigured()``` as well.
There's no real business logic duplication
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1020451641
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1020467938
I understand what this approach would achieve and how.
What I'm trying to say is that the ```nifi-dbcp-shared``` would hold a
full-fledged service all the rest. It wouldn't look
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1020451641
I'm not sure this approach is what we want. The ```nifi-dbcp-shared``` would
be basically ```nifi-dbcp-service``` itself.
But more importantly, to my understanding we don't
tpalfy commented on pull request #5692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/5692#issuecomment-1019942580
@joewitt @exceptionfactory
I was thinking about avoiding code duplication using inheritance.
However that would require a dependency on the
