I think that comment is no longer valid. Heck PutHBaseRecord started as
part of a project at my company in early 2017 and we found it perfectly
stable back then.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:46 PM Otto Fowler <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't think there are any stability issues with the record API, it
is definitely recommended to use the record approach where it makes
That comment was probably put there on the first release and never
removed, and now it has been 4-5 releases later.
As a general comment to APIs, the record stuff is part of a controller
service API, and not part of the framework API, so I do think there is
more freedom to change the API on minor releases if needed, however I
don't see any major changes to the record stuff happening.
> I think that comment is no longer valid. Heck PutHBaseRecord started as
> part of a project at my company in early 2017 and we found it perfectly
> stable back then.
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:46 PM Otto Fowler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I’m seeing
>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-commons/nifi-record/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/serialization/RecordReader.java#L34 >> being quoted as a reason to NOT build Record based processors but instead
>> stick with the original Processor api.
>> Yet, on list and on hipchat and in pr’s I’ve seen the Record approach being
>> promoted heavily.
>> Is this comment still correct? Is the API not considered stable?
>> Would the NiFi project recommend building externally hosted NiFi components
>> using the Record API?