nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Latest NiFi customs?
Date Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:05:17 GMT
Hi,

I have just one data point on the version but I would suggest moving to 1.9
if you're just starting out and if you're using the Record based processors
with potentially dynamic/changing schemas.
The automatic schema inference described in this blog post[1] makes things
much easier (or possible). I see no reason to start with 1.8 today if you
have the option of upgrading.

Java: Java 8, while outdated, is still pretty much standard almost
everywhere I look.

Cheers,
Lars

[1] <
https://medium.com/@abdelkrim.hadjidj/democratizing-nifi-record-processors-with-automatic-schemas-inference-4f2b2794c427
>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:49 PM Russell Bateman <russ@windofkeltia.com>
wrote:

> After a couple of years absence from NiFi (prior to Java 9), I find
> myself just now back in a developer role in a company that uses NiFi.
> (This is a pleasant thought, I might add, as I believe that NiFi rocks.)
> I have inherited an existing implementation that's sorely aged and,
> though I've googled mostly in vain on what I'm asking, would like to dot
> the /i/s and cross the /t/s.
>
> *What version of NiFi?*
> How far forward (toward) NiFi 1.9 should I push my company? I see that
> the Docker container is at 1.8 if that's any reference. I'm tempted
> right now to move to 1.8 immediately.
>
> *What about Java?*
> What is the state of Java in NiFi? It appears that it's still back on
> Java 8? I develop using IntelliJ IDEA. While I constrain the level of
> language features to 1.8, it isn't realistic to contemplate developing
> in IDEA without a pretty modern JDK version (I use Java 11 today because
> LTS). I assume, nevertheless, that if I'm careful not to permit--by
> setting in IDEA--the use of language constructs in my custom processors
> to exceed 1.8, I should be okay, right? Or, am I missing something and
> there are other considerations to watch out for?
>
> Thanks for any and all comments, setting me straight, etc.
>

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