t;>:
> Looks like a great idea to me as well.
>
>
> //Jorge
> From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com <mailto:ottobackwa...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:55:47 PM
> To: Pierre Villard; users@nifi.apache.org <mailto:users@nifi.apache.org>
>> *From:* Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:55:47 PM
>> *To:* Pierre Villard; users@nifi.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Default scheduling
>>
>> I think this is a great idea. I have done this
26, 2018 12:55:47 PM
> *To:* Pierre Villard; users@nifi.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Default scheduling
>
> I think this is a great idea. I have done this myself with a ‘metered’
> api using the AWS Web Gateway Api version of InvokeHttp (
> https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2588
Looks like a great idea to me as well.
//Jorge
From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:55:47 PM
To: Pierre Villard; users@nifi.apache.org
Subject: Re: Default scheduling
I think this is a great idea. I hav
community would be OK about setting a default
scheduling for the "Input" processors (where incoming relationship is
forbidden).
My point is: I see inexperienced users starting processors that should not
run with the default scheduling of 0s (because they just forget about this
setting). Prob
ut setting a default
scheduling for the "Input" processors (where incoming relationship is
forbidden).
My point is: I see inexperienced users starting processors that should not
run with the default scheduling of 0s (because they just forget about this
setting). Problem is that for some proces
