|+1 for option 3 as it should be the least painful option for the current users|
Sent from my iPhone
Another +1 for option 3 (and preference of HadoopFormatIO naming).
+1 for option 3. That approach will keep the mapping clean if SQL supports this IO. It would be good to put the proxy in the old module and move the implementation now. That way the old module can be easily deleted when the time comes.
OK, good, that's what I thought. So I stick by (3) which
1) Cleans up the library for all future uses (hopefully the majority of all users :).
2) Is fully backwards compatible for existing users, minimizing disruption, and giving them time to migrate.
In next release it will be still compatible because we keep module “hadoop-input-format” but we make it deprecated and propose to use it through module “hadoop-format” and proxy class HadoopFormatIO (or HadoopMapReduceFormatIO, whatever we name it) which will provide Write/Read functionality by using MapReduce InputFormat or OutputFormat classes.
Then, in future releases after next one, we can drop “hadoop-input-format” since it was deprecated and we provided a time to move to new API. I think this is less painful way for user but most complicated for us if the final goal it to merge “hadoop-input-format” and “hadoop-output-format” together.
Agree about not impacting users. Perhaps I misread (3), isn't it fully backwards compatible as well?
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:33 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx
in order to limit the impact for the existing users on Beam 2.x series,
I would go for (1).
On 06/09/2018 17:24, Alexey Romanenko wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I’d like to discuss the following topic (see below) with community since
> the optimal solution is not clear for me.
> There is Java IO module, called “/hadoop-input-format/”, which allows to
> use MapReduce InputFormat implementations to read data from different
> sources (for example, org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.lib.db.DBInputFormat).
> According to its name, it has only “Read" and it's missing “Write” part,
> so, I'm working on “/hadoop-output-format/” to support MapReduce
> OutputFormat (PR 6306 <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6306>). For
> this I created another module with this name. So, in the end, we will
> have two different modules “/hadoop-input-format/” and
> “/hadoop-output-format/” and it looks quite strange for me since, afaik,
> every existed Java IO, that we have, incapsulates Read and Write parts
> into one module. Additionally, we have “/hadoop-common/” and
> /“hadoop-file-system/” as other hadoop-related modules.
> Now I’m thinking how it will be better to organise all these Hadoop
> modules better. There are several options in my mind:
> 1) Add new module “/hadoop-output-format/” and leave all Hadoop modules
> “as it is”.
> Pros: no breaking changes, no additional work
> Cons: not logical for users to have the same IO in two different modules
> and with different names.
> 2) Merge “/hadoop-input-format/” and “/hadoop-output-format/” into one
> module called, say, “/hadoop-format/” or “/hadoop-mapreduce-format/”,
> keep the other Hadoop modules “as it is”.
> Pros: to have InputFormat/OutputFormat in one IO module which is logical
> for users
> Cons: breaking changes for user code because of module/IO renaming
> 3) Add new module “/hadoop-format/” (or “/hadoop-mapreduce-format/”)
> which will include new “write” functionality and be a proxy for old
> “/hadoop-input-format/”. In its turn, “/hadoop-input-format/” should
> become deprecated and be finally moved to common “/hadoop-format/”
> module in future releases. Keep the other Hadoop modules “as it is”.
> Pros: finally it will be only one module for hadoop MR format; changes
> are less painful for user
> Cons: hidden difficulties of implementation this strategy; a bit
> confusing for user
> 4) Add new module “/hadoop/” and move all already existed modules there
> as submodules (like we have for “/io/google-cloud-platform/”), merge
> “/hadoop-input-format/” and “/hadoop-output-format/” into one module.
> Pros: unification of all hadoop-related modules
> Cons: breaking changes for user code, additional complexity with deps
> and testing
> 5) Your suggestion?..
> My personal preferences are lying between 2 and 3 (if 3 is possible).
> I’m wondering if there were similar situations in Beam before and how it
> was finally resolved. If yes then probably we need to do here in similar
> Any suggestions/advices/comments would be very appreciated.
Talend - http://www.talend.com