On 04/03/2015 03:36 PM, Matt Gilman wrote:
Ricky,
What your seeing is by design. While the approach can be limiting, especially
if your looking to expose an [in|out]put port remotely in a sub group, it was
done for consistency and simplicity. Groups can have input and output ports.
This facilitates data flow into and out of the groups. When this is done at the
root level, it allows us to abstract a NiFi instance as a group to a remote
NiFi.
Matt Gilman
I think the problem is that sometimes you want a process group to be
able to use the trick where you send to a local "remote" input port to
load balance. It would be great to be able to hide that detail within a
process group, but the reuse of ports for both purposes prevents it.
Could we add an option to select whether the port is for a process group
or should listen for remote connections? That seems like an easy way to
solve the problem, though I think adding an option to load balance a
connection in cluster mode would solve the problem more cleanly. But
that would be more work, right?
rb
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Cloudera, Inc.
