nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Cave <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] MiNiFi C++ 0.1.0 Release
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:23:37 GMT
For me personally, I don't see a value add of MiNiFi Java.  The needs that
NiFi can't address MiNiFi Java can't either, so my focus is MiNiFi C++ as
that is the hole that needs fixing, again in my opinion, so that is where my
MiNiFi focus is going to be.

As I go through things I am sure I will have more questions about choices
that have been made so far regarding MiNiFi C++ (as with all things, we all
have different views on how do things and there isn't necessarily a
right/wrong answer).  If there is a better forum to address these more
specific to MiNiFi C++, please let me know.  My most pressing question is
the choice to use LevelDB for the provenance repository rather than LMDB.  A
core tenant of NiFi is fault tolerance in near all cases (as well as full
data provenance).  As LevelDB is vulnerable to corruption during write
operations due to unexpected application interruptions, would not something
more fault tolerant such as LMDB (covered under OpenLDAP Public License) be
preferable?  The question of fault tolerance applies to the flowfile
repository as well.

View this message in context:
Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at

View raw message