Stability of the Record API

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Stability of the Record API

Otto Fowler
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?

ottO
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stability of the Record API

Mike Thomsen
I think that comment is no longer valid.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?
>
> ottO
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stability of the Record API

Bryan Bende
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
sense.

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.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Mike Thomsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think that comment is no longer valid.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?
>>
>> ottO
>>