nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy LoPresto <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] MiNiFi C++ 0.1.0 Release
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2016 21:03:39 GMT

I think one reason that MiNiFi Java has been successful, both as a prototype and tool deployed
in real environments today, is that it was able to leverage much of the existing NiFi Java
codebase. This greatly reduced the "time-to-market” and allowed the development team to
get working code out into the ecosystem and start to build a community and refine the application.
Part of that community is gathering feedback from interested parties, which you are helpfully
providing here. However, I do believe there is legitimate value to MiNiFi Java. Developers
are hard at work on both the Java and C++ versions and are pushing for feature parity so that
choice of language is not a barrier to feature availability. We welcome community focus on
various aspects of the project and would not try to direct you to get involved with MiNiFi
Java if that’s not what you are interested in.

For now, this list is the best place to have conversations about MiNiFi C++ topics. The wiki
does have room for feature requests, roadmap evolution, etc. As the MiNiFi community grows,
we may split the mailing lists, but that would likely not be for some time.

Andy LoPresto
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Daniel Cave <> wrote:
> 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