|
|
+1 from my side as well.
I would assume that most Bolts that are supported by our current wrappers can be easily converted into respective Flink functions.
Fabian
Am Do., 10. Jan. 2019 um 10:35 Uhr schrieb Kostas Kloudas < [hidden email]>: +1 to drop as well.
+1 to drop.
I totally agree with your reasoning. I like that we tried to keep it,
but I don't think the maintenance overhead would be justified.
– Ufuk
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:09 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10571, we will remove the
> Storm topologies from Flink and keep the wrappers for the moment.
>
> However, looking at the FlinkTopologyContext [1], it becomes quite obvious
> that Flink's compatibility with Storm is really limited. Almost all of the
> context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these
> wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having
> them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using
> them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our
> maintenance burden in the future. What do you think?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]
> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> >> >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
|
Locked
