nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] MiNiFi C++ 0.1.0 Release
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2016 21:14:55 GMT
Regarding OpenLDAP Public License

This does not appear to be listed under the approved apache licenses
to use for source or binary dependencies.  However, it looks like it
is probably considered a variant of the BSD 3-Clause license which
would be ok as category a.  It would be helpful to validate this with
a question to legal though.

Regarding LevelDB vs Anything

Right now we have something we can discuss and validate the pros and
cons of.  If there are other implementations that allow us to do that
let's bring them forth and do that.  I don't think we're at the phase
now where any decision is necessarily reflective of a long term intent
so plenty of opportunity to choose the best tradeoffs.

This thread:

We should probably root this thread on the release discussion and fork
it out to its own thread to discuss some of these points raised.


On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Andy LoPresto <> wrote:
> Daniel,
> 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