Re: Jolt specification registry

[Otto Fowler]

I think the idea would be to provide API support for the schema registry
where you could work with it as just versioned blobs, and then the level of
support on top of that ( to the ui etc ) would be dependent on

the implementation, with AVRO being the first concrete implementation.


You could then “manage” grok patterns, jolt transforms, protobuf specs,
 and other things…. maybe even sql, ES … other queries.





On November 20, 2019 at 11:55:05, Pierre Villard (
pierre.villard...@gmail.com) wrote:

A while back, I suggested (there is a JIRA for it) something similar for
Grok patterns (being able to have a global CS managing the grok patterns
instead of relying on local files to be distributed on the NiFi nodes). Not
the same but wanted to mention it in case it would drive towards something
generic.

Pierre

Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:54, Mark Payne  a écrit :

> Well, not really. The Avro Schema Registry does perform validation of the
> Avro Schema. Which is something that a 'generic blob store' type of
> mechanism would not really provide. I think I recant my recommendation of
> making it more generic. There are definitely benefits to it being more
> specific. The ability to have an advanced UI that can make it easier to
> test the Jolt spec, as well as performing Jolt-specific validation probably
> makes it more beneficial to have a specific Jolt-oriented service.
> Additionally, it helps the user by narrowing down which service can be
> chosen. If it were more generic, the user may have many of these different
> services or many key/value pairs in one service that do not apply. By tying
> it to Jolt, it narrows down the user's choices to only those things that
> are applicable.
>
> On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Etienne Jouvin 
> wrote:
>
> Does it means that AvroSchemaRegistry is "not a good idea actually" ?
>
> I am pretty sure I misunderstood, because in this case there is a kind of
> compilation on schema.
>
> But you are right, the registry for JOLT specification is just a storage
> of blob.
>
> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:36, Mark Payne  a écrit :
>
>> I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying
>> this to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob
>> of text (or bytes). There are several other processors and controller
>> services that do this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related
>> processors that need things like core-site.xml, etc.
>>
>> It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access
>> any such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured
>> through the UI but there could be other future implementations that are
>> based on fetching from remote services, etc.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Mark
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even
>> better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller
>> service.  This is different.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.
>>>
>>> There is currently three implementation :
>>> * AvroSchemaRegistry
>>> * ConfluentSchemaRegistry
>>> * HortonworksSchemaRegistry
>>>
>>> It could be based on something like them.
>>>
>>> May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the
>>> idea to NiFi developers ?
>>>
>>> But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and
>>> JoltTransformRecord should be changed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt  a écrit :
>>>
 Hello

 Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
 then access in various components?

 If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService'
 which has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would
 probably do the trick.

 Thanks

 On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
 wrote:

> I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
> specs as well.
>
> Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
> support….
>
>
>
>
> On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (
> lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
>
> For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
> inside a schema registry.
> What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
> JolftTransformation ?
> Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from
> it, but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.
>
> Regards.
>
> Etienne Jouvin
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Pierre Villard]

A while back, I suggested (there is a JIRA for it) something similar for
Grok patterns (being able to have a global CS managing the grok patterns
instead of relying on local files to be distributed on the NiFi nodes). Not
the same but wanted to mention it in case it would drive towards something
generic.

Pierre

Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:54, Mark Payne  a écrit :

> Well, not really. The Avro Schema Registry does perform validation of the
> Avro Schema. Which is something that a 'generic blob store' type of
> mechanism would not really provide. I think I recant my recommendation of
> making it more generic. There are definitely benefits to it being more
> specific. The ability to have an advanced UI that can make it easier to
> test the Jolt spec, as well as performing Jolt-specific validation probably
> makes it more beneficial to have a specific Jolt-oriented service.
> Additionally, it helps the user by narrowing down which service can be
> chosen. If it were more generic, the user may have many of these different
> services or many key/value pairs in one service that do not apply. By tying
> it to Jolt, it narrows down the user's choices to only those things that
> are applicable.
>
> On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Etienne Jouvin 
> wrote:
>
> Does it means that AvroSchemaRegistry is "not a good idea actually" ?
>
> I am pretty sure I misunderstood, because in this case there is a kind of
> compilation on schema.
>
> But you are right, the registry for JOLT specification is just a storage
> of blob.
>
> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:36, Mark Payne  a écrit :
>
>> I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying
>> this to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob
>> of text (or bytes). There are several other processors and controller
>> services that do this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related
>> processors that need things like core-site.xml, etc.
>>
>> It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access
>> any such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured
>> through the UI but there could be other future implementations that are
>> based on fetching from remote services, etc.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Mark
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even
>> better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller
>> service.  This is different.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.
>>>
>>> There is currently three implementation :
>>> * AvroSchemaRegistry
>>> * ConfluentSchemaRegistry
>>> * HortonworksSchemaRegistry
>>>
>>> It could be based on something like them.
>>>
>>> May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the
>>> idea to NiFi developers ?
>>>
>>> But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and
>>> JoltTransformRecord should be changed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt  a écrit :
>>>
 Hello

 Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
 then access in various components?

 If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService'
 which has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would
 probably do the trick.

 Thanks

 On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
 wrote:

> I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
> specs as well.
>
> Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
> support….
>
>
>
>
> On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (
> lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
>
> For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
> inside a schema registry.
> What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
> JolftTransformation ?
> Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from
> it, but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.
>
> Regards.
>
> Etienne Jouvin
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Mark Payne]

Well, not really. The Avro Schema Registry does perform validation of the Avro 
Schema. Which is something that a 'generic blob store' type of mechanism would 
not really provide. I think I recant my recommendation of making it more 
generic. There are definitely benefits to it being more specific. The ability 
to have an advanced UI that can make it easier to test the Jolt spec, as well 
as performing Jolt-specific validation probably makes it more beneficial to 
have a specific Jolt-oriented service. Additionally, it helps the user by 
narrowing down which service can be chosen. If it were more generic, the user 
may have many of these different services or many key/value pairs in one 
service that do not apply. By tying it to Jolt, it narrows down the user's 
choices to only those things that are applicable.

On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Etienne Jouvin 
mailto:lapinoujou...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Does it means that AvroSchemaRegistry is "not a good idea actually" ?

I am pretty sure I misunderstood, because in this case there is a kind of 
compilation on schema.

But you are right, the registry for JOLT specification is just a storage of 
blob.

Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:36, Mark Payne 
mailto:marka...@hotmail.com>> a écrit :
I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying this 
to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob of text 
(or bytes). There are several other processors and controller services that do 
this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related processors that need things 
like core-site.xml, etc.

It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access any 
such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured through the 
UI but there could be other future implementations that are based on fetching 
from remote services, etc.

Thanks
-Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt 
mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even 
better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller service.  
This is different.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
mailto:lapinoujou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.

There is currently three implementation :
* AvroSchemaRegistry
* ConfluentSchemaRegistry
* HortonworksSchemaRegistry

It could be based on something like them.

May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the idea to 
NiFi developers ?

But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and JoltTransformRecord 
should be changed.







Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt 
mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
Hello

Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could then 
access in various components?

If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService' which has 
a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would probably do the 
trick.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
mailto:ottobackwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf specs as 
well.

Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and support….





On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin 
(lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:

Hello all.


For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema inside a 
schema registry.
What do you think about having this type of mechanism for JolftTransformation ?
Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from it, but 
I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

Regards.

Etienne Jouvin

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Mark Payne]

Fair enough. I forgot that we had the advanced UI for the Jolt Spec. That would 
definitely be beneficial.

On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Joe Witt 
mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> wrote:

...specific or generic - tradeoffs.  A specific service would allow Jolt Spec 
editing to have context and meaning.  A generic service for just blobs would 
not.  I think our Jolt stuff has an advanced UI that makes writing the specs a 
bit easier.  If true a more specific service would make sense. for this 
case anyway.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:36 AM Mark Payne 
mailto:marka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying this 
to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob of text 
(or bytes). There are several other processors and controller services that do 
this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related processors that need things 
like core-site.xml, etc.

It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access any 
such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured through the 
UI but there could be other future implementations that are based on fetching 
from remote services, etc.

Thanks
-Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt 
mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even 
better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller service.  
This is different.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
mailto:lapinoujou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.

There is currently three implementation :
* AvroSchemaRegistry
* ConfluentSchemaRegistry
* HortonworksSchemaRegistry

It could be based on something like them.

May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the idea to 
NiFi developers ?

But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and JoltTransformRecord 
should be changed.







Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt 
mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
Hello

Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could then 
access in various components?

If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService' which has 
a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would probably do the 
trick.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
mailto:ottobackwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf specs as 
well.

Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and support….





On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin 
(lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:

Hello all.


For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema inside a 
schema registry.
What do you think about having this type of mechanism for JolftTransformation ?
Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from it, but 
I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

Regards.

Etienne Jouvin

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Etienne Jouvin]

Does it means that AvroSchemaRegistry is "not a good idea actually" ?

I am pretty sure I misunderstood, because in this case there is a kind of
compilation on schema.

But you are right, the registry for JOLT specification is just a storage of
blob.

Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:36, Mark Payne  a écrit :

> I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying
> this to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob
> of text (or bytes). There are several other processors and controller
> services that do this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related
> processors that need things like core-site.xml, etc.
>
> It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access
> any such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured
> through the UI but there could be other future implementations that are
> based on fetching from remote services, etc.
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>
> 
> Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even
> better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller
> service.  This is different.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.
>>
>> There is currently three implementation :
>> * AvroSchemaRegistry
>> * ConfluentSchemaRegistry
>> * HortonworksSchemaRegistry
>>
>> It could be based on something like them.
>>
>> May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the
>> idea to NiFi developers ?
>>
>> But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and
>> JoltTransformRecord should be changed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt  a écrit :
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
>>> then access in various components?
>>>
>>> If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService'
>>> which has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would
>>> probably do the trick.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
 specs as well.

 Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
 support….




 On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (
 lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:

 Hello all.


 For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
 inside a schema registry.
 What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
 JolftTransformation ?
 Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from
 it, but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

 Regards.

 Etienne Jouvin

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Joe Witt]

...specific or generic - tradeoffs.  A specific service would allow Jolt
Spec editing to have context and meaning.  A generic service for just blobs
would not.  I think our Jolt stuff has an advanced UI that makes writing
the specs a bit easier.  If true a more specific service would make sense.
for this case anyway.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:36 AM Mark Payne  wrote:

> I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying
> this to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob
> of text (or bytes). There are several other processors and controller
> services that do this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related
> processors that need things like core-site.xml, etc.
>
> It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access
> any such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured
> through the UI but there could be other future implementations that are
> based on fetching from remote services, etc.
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>
> 
> Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even
> better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller
> service.  This is different.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.
>>
>> There is currently three implementation :
>> * AvroSchemaRegistry
>> * ConfluentSchemaRegistry
>> * HortonworksSchemaRegistry
>>
>> It could be based on something like them.
>>
>> May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the
>> idea to NiFi developers ?
>>
>> But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and
>> JoltTransformRecord should be changed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt  a écrit :
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
>>> then access in various components?
>>>
>>> If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService'
>>> which has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would
>>> probably do the trick.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
 specs as well.

 Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
 support….




 On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (
 lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:

 Hello all.


 For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
 inside a schema registry.
 What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
 JolftTransformation ?
 Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from
 it, but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

 Regards.

 Etienne Jouvin

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Mark Payne]

I would recommend that we also be careful about the naming here and tying this 
to Jolt. Really, this is just a mechanism for externalizing a big blob of text 
(or bytes). There are several other processors and controller services that do 
this, such as scripted components, Hadoop related processors that need things 
like core-site.xml, etc.

It may be advantageous to consider this as a more generic way to access any 
such resource. A simple implementation would be purely configured through the 
UI but there could be other future implementations that are based on fetching 
from remote services, etc.

Thanks
-Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 20, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:


Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even 
better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller service.  
This is different.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
mailto:lapinoujou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.

There is currently three implementation :
* AvroSchemaRegistry
* ConfluentSchemaRegistry
* HortonworksSchemaRegistry

It could be based on something like them.

May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the idea to 
NiFi developers ?

But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and JoltTransformRecord 
should be changed.







Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt 
mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
Hello

Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could then 
access in various components?

If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService' which has 
a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would probably do the 
trick.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
mailto:ottobackwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf specs as 
well.

Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and support….




On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin 
(lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:

Hello all.


For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema inside a 
schema registry.
What do you think about having this type of mechanism for JolftTransformation ?
Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from it, but 
I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

Regards.

Etienne Jouvin

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Etienne Jouvin]

For the PR...

If only I would have enough time for that ;)
Soon it will be end  year holidays, may be...



Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:28, Joe Witt  a écrit :

> Yeah filing a JIRA would be good.  Contributing a PR for it would be even
> better.  It should have no impact on the schema registry controller
> service.  This is different.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Etienne Jouvin 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.
>>
>> There is currently three implementation :
>> * AvroSchemaRegistry
>> * ConfluentSchemaRegistry
>> * HortonworksSchemaRegistry
>>
>> It could be based on something like them.
>>
>> May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the
>> idea to NiFi developers ?
>>
>> But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and
>> JoltTransformRecord should be changed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt  a écrit :
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
>>> then access in various components?
>>>
>>> If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService'
>>> which has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would
>>> probably do the trick.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
 specs as well.

 Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
 support….




 On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (
 lapinoujou...@gmail.com) wrote:

 Hello all.


 For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
 inside a schema registry.
 What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
 JolftTransformation ?
 Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from
 it, but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

 Regards.

 Etienne Jouvin

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Etienne Jouvin]

Yes it would be a ControllerService as you described.

There is currently three implementation :
* AvroSchemaRegistry
* ConfluentSchemaRegistry
* HortonworksSchemaRegistry

It could be based on something like them.

May be I should send something on Jira or somewhere else to submit the idea
to NiFi developers ?

But it also means that the processor JoltTransformJSON and
JoltTransformRecord should be changed.







Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 16:08, Joe Witt  a écrit :

> Hello
>
> Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
> then access in various components?
>
> If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService' which
> has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would probably do
> the trick.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
> wrote:
>
>> I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
>> specs as well.
>>
>> Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
>> support….
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (lapinoujou...@gmail.com)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>>
>> For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
>> inside a schema registry.
>> What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
>> JolftTransformation ?
>> Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from
>> it, but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Etienne Jouvin
>>
>>
>>

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Joe Witt]

Hello

Is the idea to have a place to store Jolt specifications that you could
then access in various components?

If so a simple ControllerService such as 'JoltSpecControllerService' which
has a list of keys (names of specs) and values (the spec) would probably do
the trick.

Thanks

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM Otto Fowler 
wrote:

> I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf
> specs as well.
>
> Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
> support….
>
>
>
>
> On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (lapinoujou...@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
>
> For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema
> inside a schema registry.
> What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
> JolftTransformation ?
> Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from it,
> but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.
>
> Regards.
>
> Etienne Jouvin
>
>
>

Re: Jolt specification registry

[Otto Fowler]

I think that is a great idea, I’d suggest the same thing for protobuf specs
as well.

Even if the first step is the registry supporting raw bytes access and
support….




On November 20, 2019 at 09:28:23, Etienne Jouvin (lapinoujou...@gmail.com)
wrote:

Hello all.


For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema inside
a schema registry.
What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
JolftTransformation ?
Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from it,
but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

Regards.

Etienne Jouvin

Jolt specification registry

[Etienne Jouvin]

Hello all.


For reader and writers, there is the possibility to store the schema inside
a schema registry.
What do you think about having this type of mechanism for
JolftTransformation ?
Currently, I can put Jolt specification in variables and get them from it,
but I think it could be nice tohave same as schema registry.

Regards.

Etienne Jouvin