OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?


Yes, let's do it this way.
The wrapper classes are probably not too complex and can be easily tested.
We have the same for the Hadoop interfaces, although I think only the
Input- and OutputFormatWrappers are actually used.


Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 09:46 Uhr schrieb Chesnay Schepler <
chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> That sounds very good to me.
>
> On 08.10.2018 11:36, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> > Good point. The initial idea of this thread was to remove the storm
> > compatibility layer completely.
> >
> > During the discussion I realized that it might be useful for our users
> > to not completely remove it in one go. Instead for those who still
> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to
> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more
> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and then
> > the wrappers. What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler <chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >     I don't believe that to be the consensus. For starters it is
> >     contradictory; we can't /drop /flink-storm yet still /keep //some
> >     parts/.
> >
> >     From my understanding we drop flink-storm completely, and put a
> >     note in the docs that the bolt/spout wrappers of previous versions
> >     will continue to work.
> >
> >     On 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >>     Thanks for opening the issue Chesnay. I think the overall
> >>     consensus is to drop flink-storm and only keep the Bolt and Spout
> >>     wrappers. Thanks for your feedback!
> >>
> >>     Cheers,
> >>     Till
> >>
> >>     On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:37 AM Chesnay Schepler
> >>     <chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >>
> >>         I've created
> >>         https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10509 for
> >>         removing flink-storm.
> >>
> >>         On 28.09.2018 15:22, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >>         > Hi everyone,
> >>         >
> >>         > I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm
> >>         compatibility
> >>         > layer flink-strom.
> >>         >
> >>         > While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed
> >>         that some parts of
> >>         > flink-storm rely on the legacy Flink client. In fact, at
> >>         the moment
> >>         > flink-storm does not work together with Flink's new
> distributed
> >>         > architecture.
> >>         >
> >>         > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
> >>         Flink's Storm
> >>         > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >>         >
> >>         > I see two options how to proceed:
> >>         >
> >>         > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
> >>         new architecture
> >>         > 2) Drop flink-storm
> >>         >
> >>         > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
> >>         because once we
> >>         > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work
> >>         with all newer
> >>         > Flink versions.
> >>         >
> >>         > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
> >>         particular if
> >>         > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >>         >
> >>         > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >>         >
> >>         > Cheers,
> >>         > Till
> >>         >
> >>
> >
>
>