I understand there was a discussion thread within the NiFi community for this as well and I missed responding to that at that time. It just seems to me like JSON processing is necessary for GetTwitter, which is incredibly useful for demonstrating NiFi’s ability to read from a high volume stream out of the box. With NIFI-3019 (Remove GetTwitter from default build), is there any related effort to substitute an acceptable replacement JSON library to restore this functionality?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019> Andy LoPresto [email protected] [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Andy LoPresto <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and > NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we investigated > some alternate TLS config options for the new version of the client library. > > Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using Johnzon > [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the mailing list thread? > > [1] https://johnzon.apache.org/ <https://johnzon.apache.org/> > [2] https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html > <https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html> > > > Andy LoPresto > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > >> On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Team >> >> Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to >> 1.1.0. Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work >> to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had. The most notable >> impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new >> nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default >> build. It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but >> we won't distribute binaries that have it. >> >> I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items. >> >> I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone >> have any outstanding items? >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Ryan >> >> Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and >> start a vote in the next week or two at most. >> >> I'm going through the tickets again now. There is also a new issue of >> the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and >> becoming Category-X. Am looking into that now. >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1? >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> Team, >>>> >>>> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 >>>> release. There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are >>>> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is >>>> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with >>>> what makes it in and keep working it down. So let's please shoot for >>>> a couple weeks from now. If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0. Let's >>>>> avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion. >>>>> Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be >>>>> able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the >>>>> list grow. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> joe >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> Joe, >>>>>> >>>>>> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an >> example. >>>> All >>>>>> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgardo, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that >>>>>>> through review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal >> was >>>> try >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the >>>>>>> important >>>>>>>> bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the >>>> release >>>>>>>> notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is >>>> really >>>>>>>> huge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in >>>> the >>>>>>>> mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only >>>> trying to >>>>>>>> strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do >>>>>>> better. >>>>>>>> I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and >>>> make >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great >> this >>>>>>>> community is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to >> strengthen >>>> the >>>>>>>> nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it >> was >>>>>>>> reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the >>>> participation >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't >>>> want >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> see that happen here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edgardo, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a >>>> committer I >>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having >>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>> taken many of the steps you suggest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should >>>> not be >>>>>>>>> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most >>>> of us >>>>>>>>> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our >>>> peers >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long >>>> time >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> we are working to improve this pipeline. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was therefore no coincidence that I browsed most of the PRs >>>>>>> performing >>>>>>>>> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the >>>> current >>>>>>>>> code base. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of >>>> stalled >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master >> contain a >>>>>>> series >>>>>>>>> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit >> from >>>> a >>>>>>>>> release sooner rather than later. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is >>>> good to >>>>>>>>> have you here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andre >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are >> currently >>>>>>> open. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I >>>> believe >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could >> be >>>> a >>>>>>>>> forcing >>>>>>>>>> function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more >>>>>>> willing >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able >>>> accepted >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in >>>> progress >>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged >>>> with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers >>>> at >>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't >>>> think I >>>>>>>>>> would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get >>>> that >>>>>>>>>> sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule >>>> about >>>>>>>>>> closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over >>>> by a >>>>>>> core >>>>>>>>>> contributor if they think it worthwhile. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was >> quick >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> review, provided great comments, testing, and even some >> additional >>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> was a great PR experience. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall < >>>>>>> [email protected] <javascript:;>. >>>>>>>>>> invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull >>>> Requests >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 >>>> version. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR >>>> count) >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>> be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing >> takes a >>>>>>>>>>> significant amount of time from both the reviewer and >>>> contributor. >>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>> to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a >>>> couple >>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also there has already been a lot of great new features and >> bug >>>>>>> fixes >>>>>>>>>>> contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth >>>> holding up >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> 1.1.0 >>>>>>>>>>> release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an >>>> added >>>>>>> bonus >>>>>>>>>>> though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs >>>> already >>>>>>>>> open >>>>>>>>>>> so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - - - - - - >>>>>>>>>>> Joseph Percivall >>>>>>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/Percivall >>>>>>>>>>> e: [email protected] <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are less than 30 right now. Many of the roughly 90+ >> JIRAs >>>>>>>>>>> opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed >> or >>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> had fix versions removed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to >> deal >>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega < >>>>>>> [email protected] <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Joe, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over >> the >>>> next >>>>>>>>>> bunch >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> days to get them closed and then cut the release after that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Team, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features. I >>>> would >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much >>>> based >>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new >>>> Apache >>>>>>> NiFi >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 version. We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 >>>> week >>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi >>>> 1.2.0 >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on >>>>>>> this. In >>>>>>>>>>>>> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be >>>> seeing a >>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>>>>> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing >>>> for >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Team, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the >>>> master >>>>>>>>> line >>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a >>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which >> are >>>>>>> open. >>>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to go through them and remove fix versions where >>>>>>>>> appropriate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if >>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to take that on please advise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgardo >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
