git.net

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?


 I would drop it.

Niels Basjes

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, <k.kloudas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
> stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
>
> Cheers,
> Kostas
>
> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen <wander4096@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to drop it.
> >
> > It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
> > module sparse often means that there is low interest.
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
> >
> > 远远 <zhao137578346@xxxxxxxxx> 于2018年9月29日周六 下午2:16写道:
> >
> >> +1, it‘s time to drop it😂
> >>
> >> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) <wangzhijiang999@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2018年9月29日周六
> >> 下午1:53写道:
> >>
> >>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 发件人:Jeff Carter <jpcarterara@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> 发送时间:2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
> >>> 收件人:dev <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> 抄 送:chesnay <chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx>; Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@xxxxxxxxxx
> >;
> >>> user <user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> 主 题:Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
> >>>
> >>> +1 to drop it.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng <chenghequn@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best, Hequn
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM Chesnay Schepler <chesnay@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm very much in favor of dropping it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO
> we've
> >>>>> reached the point where we should cull some of the more obscure ones.
> >>>
> >>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers
> too
> >>>>> little value.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
> compatible,
> >>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
> >>>>> Flink APIs.
> >>>
> >>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
> if we
> >>>>> drop it
> >>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>