nifi-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <...@apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] [nifi-minifi-cpp] msharee9 commented on a change in pull request #613: Minificpp 927 Nanofi tailfile delimited processor
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:59:22 GMT
msharee9 commented on a change in pull request #613: Minificpp 927 Nanofi tailfile delimited
processor
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/613#discussion_r314056477
 
 

 ##########
 File path: nanofi/include/api/ecu.h
 ##########
 @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+ * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
+ * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+ * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+ * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+ * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+    *
+    *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+*/
+
+#ifndef NANOFI_INCLUDE_API_ECU_H_
+#define NANOFI_INCLUDE_API_ECU_H_
+
+#include <signal.h>
+#include "api/nanofi.h"
+#include "uthash.h"
+#include "utlist.h"
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+extern "C" {
+#endif
+
+
+typedef struct processor_params {
+    char uuid_str[37]; //key
+    struct flow_file_list * ff_list;
+    uint64_t curr_offset;
+    UT_hash_handle hh;
+} processor_params;
+
+extern processor_params * procparams;
 
 Review comment:
   The only other way to deal with this kind of issue to not have globals is to modify the
internal minifi C++ API we are using for nanofi. Since we will anyhow move away from using
that, I did not want to deal with modifying that and throw away that work later. It wouldn't
be a problem to have mutex protection when we deal with multiple threads.
   
   Can you please elaborate a use case where we would have to deal with multiple threads in
an ECU given we offload EFM communication to the orchestrator agent ?

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Mime
View raw message