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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 ( >>>> [email protected]) 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 >>>> >>>> >>>>
