nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ed B <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Expression Language - New Feature (UDF)
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2018 14:37:54 GMT
Hi Joe,
I initially missed your response and just continued development. Then I
needed to redesign the entire thing to address your concerns, cause them
all made sense.

Now it is ready (NIFI-5492_EXEC Adding UDF to EL
<>) and I'm opened for discussion.

Here are few points from your concerns:
- EL APIs - no change (added new function)
- NIFI APIs - no change
- Full isolation of custom provided JARs with UDFs. They won't need to be
part of any NARs.
- UDF Jars can be anywhere on a file system, and file will
have a property for that location.

I would appreciate if you could take a look in high level at least and
share your feedback with me. :)

Thank you!

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:56 PM Joe Witt <> wrote:

> Ed,
> This is an interesting path to explore and but historically we've held
> off going further because the use cases for it were never really well
> articulated/strong relative to the obvious complexities of it.
> This is definitely a good thing to discuss in more detail.
> I think your note starts to enumerate some good places that will need
> attention.  Things that come to top of mind for me:
> - Would require changes to nifi-api
> - Would probably require alignment with classloader isolation so that
> the classloader of the component being used is leveraged when
> evaluating the expression language and that the UDFs are found within
> the given nar.  This would be quite a big change to EL overall.  Also
> there are certainly other approaches i've not considered or talked
> about here because they're really complex.
> It seems like this would be a pretty major change in extensibility and
> I wonder if this would be worth it.  If we're needing to make EL
> statements so flexible it might be that attributes are being
> over-leveraged.  It would be good to talk about the use cases in more
> detail.  The components are the primary point of extension intended
> here.  If the EL statements start to include classnames, etc.. then
> the complexity of them seems not too different than someone just
> writing a custom processor using one of the scripting options.
> Certainly not trying to shut this down - just want to have a lot more
> discussion/basis for it.
> Thanks
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Ed B <> wrote:
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > I've finished (almost) development of a new feature for EL: UDF (User
> > Defined Functions).
> > This will add flexibility to EL, reduce complexity of the flows and so
> on,
> > and so on...
> >
> > Example:
> > ${exec('com.example.MyDateUtils', 'minus', ${now()}, '1 year')}
> > or
> > ${myAttribute:exec('com.example.MyMasker', 'maskCreditCard')}
> >
> > But while making it more generic and flexible, I've faced some
> challenges,
> > which I would like to discuss.
> >
> > First of all, as per current implementation of EL, any expression should
> > have output type. Each evaluator needs to specify which type it will
> return
> > think it is not possible to make it generic without impacting entire EL
> > framework, which I would like to avoid obviously.
> > So, first challenge - new EXEC function will always return String type.
> Or
> > should I try to introduce new bugs in a core of EL? :)
> >
> > Second challenge is an interface of this function.
> > Easiest way is to define new interface
> > org.apache.nifi.attribute.expression.language.ExecutableUDF with method "
> > execute" accepting array of Strings. 2 Cons: new class implementation for
> > each function, and casting from strings into desired data types.
> >
> > More advanced way: no interface, methods will be looked up by the types
> > provided in EL itself. This is more opened API, but needs more reflection
> > and assumptions during error handling. This way is more flexible and
> > doesn't require implementation of given interface (reduced maven
> > dependencies, and as a result - less hassle during upgrades, especially
> if
> > there are changes in how class loaders are defined, etc). I have it
> > implemented and it works fine (with some limitations related to mapping
> of
> > EL vs Java data types), but not sure if we need to limit to the interface
> > implementation...
> >
> > I will appreciate any feedback and comments from community.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ed.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message