Actually the InvokeHTTP is a special case because it can accept incoming relationship... so setting a default like 1s could be unwanted for some users... but I think it'd be less risky to have a default of 1s that people can change rather than keeping 0s as default and having the risk of harming the remote system...
2018-04-26 13:24 GMT+02:00 Jorge Castellote <[email protected]>: > Looks like a great idea to me as well. > > > > //Jorge > ------------------------------ > *From:* Otto Fowler <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:55:47 PM > *To:* Pierre Villard; [email protected] > *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 shameless plug ). > I can’t think of how 0s would ever be a sane default. > > > On April 26, 2018 at 04:18:04, Pierre Villard ([email protected]) > wrote: > > Hi there, > > Since few versions already, it's now possible to define default values for > scheduling of the components using a dedicated annotation. Example > > @DefaultSchedule(strategy = SchedulingStrategy.TIMER_DRIVEN, period = "1 > min") > > I'm wondering if the 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). Problem is that for some processors this could harm the remote > system the processor is connected to. > > One recent example I saw (even though it's not an "input" processor) is > with InvokeHTTP: if we forget to change the scheduling, it'll send > thousands of requests to the remote service and could have negative impact > on it. > > Thoughts? > >
