You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> on 2015/07/01 10:28:45 UTC
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
(adding dev@ to the conversation)
Chiwan looked into the issue. It seems that we can not add the Scala
version only to flink-scala, flink-streaming-scala, ....
Since flink-runtime also needs scala all modules are affected by this.
I would vote for naming the Scala 2.10 version of flink modules without a
suffix:
flink-java
flink-core
flink-runtime
And for the Scala 2.11 builds:
flink-java_2.11
flink-core_2.11
flink-runtime_2.11
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com> wrote:
> I’m interested in working on this. :) I’ll assign to me.
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, it seems like we have consensus on this. Who is interested in
> working on this? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > +1 for giving only those modules a version suffix which depend on Scala.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:03 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > There was already a discussion regarding the two options here [1], back
> then we had a majority for giving all modules a scala suffix.
> >
> > I'm against giving all modules a suffix because we force our users to
> migrate the name and its confusing for Java users (I was confused myself
> when I was trying out Spark two years ago (back then I didn't know anything
> about Scala ;) ))
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/477#issuecomment-82266786
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Good idea, Chiwan!
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi. I think that we don’t need deploy all modules with scala variation.
> The pure java-based modules such as flink-java, flink-core,
> flink-optimizers, …, etc. don’t need to be deployed with scala version
> variation. We need only scala related modules such as flink-ml,
> flink-runtime, flink-scala, …, etc. with version variation.
> >
> > So we can reduce a number of deployed modules.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chiwan Park
> >
> > > On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that we should ship a 2.11 build of Flink if downstream
> projects need that.
> > >
> > > The only thing that we should keep in mind when doing this is that the
> number of jars we're pushing to maven will explode (but that is fine)
> > > We have currently 46 maven modules and we would create 4 versions of
> each of the modules (hd1,hd2 x scala210,scala211) so we end up with 184
> jars per release ;)
> > >
> > > The other big question that I have regarding this is how we want to
> name the modules.
> > > We could add the scala version to all the modules, like
> "flink-java_2.10", which would mean that users have to change a bit more
> when upgrading to the release supporting different scala versions.
> > >
> > > If we all agree on that, we can move on changing our maven setup.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Kostas Tzoumas <kt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > Please do ping this list if you encounter any problems with Flink
> during your project (you have done so already :-), but also if you find
> that the Flink API needs additions to map Pig well to Flink
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Philipp Goetze <
> philipp.goetze@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
> > > Done. Can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Philipp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10.06.2015 15:29, Chiwan Park wrote:
> > > But I think uploading Flink API with scala 2.11 to maven repository is
> nice idea.
> > > Could you create a JIRA issue?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Chiwan Park
> > >
> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > No. Currently, there are no Flink binaries with scala 2.11 which are
> downloadable.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Chiwan Park
> > >
> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Philipp Goetze <
> philipp.goetze@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Chiwan!
> > >
> > > I did not know the master has a 2.11 profile.
> > >
> > > But there is no pre-built Flink with 2.11, which I could refer to in
> sbt or maven, is it?
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Philipp
> > >
> > > On 10.06.2015 15:03, Chiwan Park wrote:
> > > Hi. You can build Flink with Scala 2.11 with scala-2.11 profile in
> master branch.
> > > `mvn clean install -DskipTests -P \!scala-2.10,scala-2.11` command
> builds Flink with Scala 2.11.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Chiwan Park
> > >
> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Flavio Pompermaier <po...@okkam.it>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nice!
> > >
> > > On 10 Jun 2015 14:49, "Philipp Goetze" <ph...@tu-ilmenau.de>
> wrote:
> > > Hi community!
> > >
> > > We started a new project called Piglet (
> https://github.com/ksattler/piglet).
> > > For that we use i.a. Flink as a backend. The project is based on Scala
> 2.11. Thus we need a 2.11 build of Flink.
> > >
> > > Until now we used the 2.11 branch of the stratosphere project and
> built Flink ourselves. Unfortunately this branch is not up-to-date.
> > >
> > > Do you have an official repository for Flink 0.9 (built with Scala
> 2.11)?
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Philipp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>.
Just a note that FLINK-2200
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200> has been resolved.
All flink artifacts are now two times in the maven snapshot repository: one
without a suffix (scala 2.10) and one with a suffix (_2.11 for scala 2.11).
There is also a nightly _2.11 binary release for Flink:
http://stratosphere-bin.s3.amazonaws.com/flink-0.10-SNAPSHOT-bin-hadoop2_2.11.tgz
There is no hadoop1_2.11 artifact. I'm for now assuming that somebody who's
using the latest scala is not using a legacy Hadoop version ;)
I would appreciate some testing from users who requested this feature to
make sure everything is working as expected for the next major release.
We need to make sure that no 2.10 dependency is coming in anywhere and that
Flink with Scala 2.11 is working properly.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> I cannot find talking about pure/non-pure java distinction in the
> documentation.
>
> I defined the rules about artifact id to apply modules by only Scala
> version not
> pure/non-pure java. The modules without suffix `_2.11` means that they are
> linked with Scala 2.10 binary.
>
> If I misunderstood your sentence or missed the talking in documentation,
> please
> notify me.
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
> > On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all modules are Scala
> > dependent module.
> >
> > If all modules will need the suffix after your PR is merged, why would
> you
> > talk about pure/non-pure distinction in the documentation? This adds
> > complexity and may cause confusion which at the moment can be spared. If
> in
> > the future a "pure Java module" (without) is introduced, the
> documentation
> > can be updated accordingly.
> >
> > My two cents regarding the "optional suffix policy" are that thinks
> should
> > be kept simple. If Scala has penetrated 100% percent of the current
> > modules, new modules should be "proactive" and anticipate that this will
> > likely happen to them in the future, even if they start as "pure Java". I
> > prefer a strict policy that makes everything clear for the user (even if
> it
> > is a bit inefficient in terms of packaging and release management) as
> > opposed to a naming convention based on implementation-details.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.
> >
> >
> > 2015-07-05 13:16 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> @Stephan: Okay, I’ll find the mentionings in other document. I think
> that
> >> we
> >> can postpone updating downloads page in flink-web until releasing 0.10.
> >>
> >> @Alexandar Thank you for comments. I’ll apply your suggestions.
> >>
> >> In your example, *flink-pure-java* is not pure java module. If there is
> >> any need
> >> of linkage with Scala dependent module in some module, the module is
> also
> >> Scala dependent module. Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all
> >> modules are Scala dependent module.
> >>
> >> So in your example, *flink-some-scala-A*, *flink-some-scala-B*, and
> >> *flink-pure-java* should have a suffix `_2.11` if the user want to run
> in
> >> Flink
> >> with Scala 2.11. (In Scala 2.10, we don’t need it.)
> >>
> >> I agree that it makes too many modules. But it is clear in user
> >> perspective. The
> >> users just decide which Scala version to use their cluster and add a
> >> suffix to
> >> all dependency if the version is 2.11.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Chiwan Park
> >>
> >>> On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> @Chiwan:
> >>>
> >>> There are a few mentionings of the Scala version in the docs as well.
> For
> >>> example in "docs/index.md" and on the website under "downloads".
> >>>
> >>> We should make sure we explain on these pages that there are downloads
> >> for
> >>> various Scala versions.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Stephan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> >>> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add
> a
> >>>> suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my
> >>>> concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java
> >>>> artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact
> >>>> *flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and
> >>>> *flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala
> >> 2.11.
> >>>> We end up with a situation like this
> >>>>
> >>>> - flink-pure-java
> >>>> `- flink-some-scala-A
> >>>> `- flink-some-scala-B
> >>>> - flink-some-scala-B_2.11
> >>>>
> >>>> We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>> I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the
> >> PR.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Chiwan Park
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help
> me,
> >>>> I
> >>>>> really appreciate. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Chiwan Park
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> >>>>> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more
> then
> >>>>> happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Chiwan Park
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1, like that approach
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>.
I cannot find talking about pure/non-pure java distinction in the documentation.
I defined the rules about artifact id to apply modules by only Scala version not
pure/non-pure java. The modules without suffix `_2.11` means that they are
linked with Scala 2.10 binary.
If I misunderstood your sentence or missed the talking in documentation, please
notify me.
Regards,
Chiwan Park
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all modules are Scala
> dependent module.
>
> If all modules will need the suffix after your PR is merged, why would you
> talk about pure/non-pure distinction in the documentation? This adds
> complexity and may cause confusion which at the moment can be spared. If in
> the future a "pure Java module" (without) is introduced, the documentation
> can be updated accordingly.
>
> My two cents regarding the "optional suffix policy" are that thinks should
> be kept simple. If Scala has penetrated 100% percent of the current
> modules, new modules should be "proactive" and anticipate that this will
> likely happen to them in the future, even if they start as "pure Java". I
> prefer a strict policy that makes everything clear for the user (even if it
> is a bit inefficient in terms of packaging and release management) as
> opposed to a naming convention based on implementation-details.
>
> Regards,
> A.
>
>
> 2015-07-05 13:16 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>
>> @Stephan: Okay, I’ll find the mentionings in other document. I think that
>> we
>> can postpone updating downloads page in flink-web until releasing 0.10.
>>
>> @Alexandar Thank you for comments. I’ll apply your suggestions.
>>
>> In your example, *flink-pure-java* is not pure java module. If there is
>> any need
>> of linkage with Scala dependent module in some module, the module is also
>> Scala dependent module. Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all
>> modules are Scala dependent module.
>>
>> So in your example, *flink-some-scala-A*, *flink-some-scala-B*, and
>> *flink-pure-java* should have a suffix `_2.11` if the user want to run in
>> Flink
>> with Scala 2.11. (In Scala 2.10, we don’t need it.)
>>
>> I agree that it makes too many modules. But it is clear in user
>> perspective. The
>> users just decide which Scala version to use their cluster and add a
>> suffix to
>> all dependency if the version is 2.11.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chiwan Park
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> @Chiwan:
>>>
>>> There are a few mentionings of the Scala version in the docs as well. For
>>> example in "docs/index.md" and on the website under "downloads".
>>>
>>> We should make sure we explain on these pages that there are downloads
>> for
>>> various Scala versions.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
>>> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add a
>>>> suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my
>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java
>>>> artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact
>>>> *flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and
>>>> *flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala
>> 2.11.
>>>> We end up with a situation like this
>>>>
>>>> - flink-pure-java
>>>> `- flink-some-scala-A
>>>> `- flink-some-scala-B
>>>> - flink-some-scala-B_2.11
>>>>
>>>> We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the
>> PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Chiwan Park
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me,
>>>> I
>>>>> really appreciate. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Chiwan Park
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
>>>>> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then
>>>>> happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Chiwan Park
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1, like that approach
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com>.
> Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all modules are Scala
dependent module.
If all modules will need the suffix after your PR is merged, why would you
talk about pure/non-pure distinction in the documentation? This adds
complexity and may cause confusion which at the moment can be spared. If in
the future a "pure Java module" (without) is introduced, the documentation
can be updated accordingly.
My two cents regarding the "optional suffix policy" are that thinks should
be kept simple. If Scala has penetrated 100% percent of the current
modules, new modules should be "proactive" and anticipate that this will
likely happen to them in the future, even if they start as "pure Java". I
prefer a strict policy that makes everything clear for the user (even if it
is a bit inefficient in terms of packaging and release management) as
opposed to a naming convention based on implementation-details.
Regards,
A.
2015-07-05 13:16 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> @Stephan: Okay, I’ll find the mentionings in other document. I think that
> we
> can postpone updating downloads page in flink-web until releasing 0.10.
>
> @Alexandar Thank you for comments. I’ll apply your suggestions.
>
> In your example, *flink-pure-java* is not pure java module. If there is
> any need
> of linkage with Scala dependent module in some module, the module is also
> Scala dependent module. Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all
> modules are Scala dependent module.
>
> So in your example, *flink-some-scala-A*, *flink-some-scala-B*, and
> *flink-pure-java* should have a suffix `_2.11` if the user want to run in
> Flink
> with Scala 2.11. (In Scala 2.10, we don’t need it.)
>
> I agree that it makes too many modules. But it is clear in user
> perspective. The
> users just decide which Scala version to use their cluster and add a
> suffix to
> all dependency if the version is 2.11.
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
> > On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > @Chiwan:
> >
> > There are a few mentionings of the Scala version in the docs as well. For
> > example in "docs/index.md" and on the website under "downloads".
> >
> > We should make sure we explain on these pages that there are downloads
> for
> > various Scala versions.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> > alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions.
> >>
> >> I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add a
> >> suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my
> >> concerns.
> >>
> >> Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java
> >> artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact
> >> *flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*.
> >>
> >> Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and
> >> *flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala
> 2.11.
> >> We end up with a situation like this
> >>
> >> - flink-pure-java
> >> `- flink-some-scala-A
> >> `- flink-some-scala-B
> >> - flink-some-scala-B_2.11
> >>
> >> We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>> I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the
> PR.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Chiwan Park
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me,
> >> I
> >>> really appreciate. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Chiwan Park
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> >>> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then
> >>> happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> >>>>> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Chiwan Park
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1, like that approach
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>.
@Stephan: Okay, I’ll find the mentionings in other document. I think that we
can postpone updating downloads page in flink-web until releasing 0.10.
@Alexandar Thank you for comments. I’ll apply your suggestions.
In your example, *flink-pure-java* is not pure java module. If there is any need
of linkage with Scala dependent module in some module, the module is also
Scala dependent module. Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all
modules are Scala dependent module.
So in your example, *flink-some-scala-A*, *flink-some-scala-B*, and
*flink-pure-java* should have a suffix `_2.11` if the user want to run in Flink
with Scala 2.11. (In Scala 2.10, we don’t need it.)
I agree that it makes too many modules. But it is clear in user perspective. The
users just decide which Scala version to use their cluster and add a suffix to
all dependency if the version is 2.11.
Regards,
Chiwan Park
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> @Chiwan:
>
> There are a few mentionings of the Scala version in the docs as well. For
> example in "docs/index.md" and on the website under "downloads".
>
> We should make sure we explain on these pages that there are downloads for
> various Scala versions.
>
> Cheers,
> Stephan
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions.
>>
>> I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add a
>> suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my
>> concerns.
>>
>> Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java
>> artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact
>> *flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*.
>>
>> Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and
>> *flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala 2.11.
>> We end up with a situation like this
>>
>> - flink-pure-java
>> `- flink-some-scala-A
>> `- flink-some-scala-B
>> - flink-some-scala-B_2.11
>>
>> We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>> I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the PR.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chiwan Park
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me,
>> I
>>> really appreciate. :)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Chiwan Park
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
>>> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then
>>> happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>>>>> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Chiwan Park
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1, like that approach
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>.
@Chiwan:
There are a few mentionings of the Scala version in the docs as well. For
example in "docs/index.md" and on the website under "downloads".
We should make sure we explain on these pages that there are downloads for
various Scala versions.
Cheers,
Stephan
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions.
>
> I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add a
> suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my
> concerns.
>
> Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java
> artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact
> *flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*.
>
> Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and
> *flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala 2.11.
> We end up with a situation like this
>
> - flink-pure-java
> `- flink-some-scala-A
> `- flink-some-scala-B
> - flink-some-scala-B_2.11
>
> We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project.
>
>
>
> 2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>
> > Hi All,
> > I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the PR.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chiwan Park
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
> >
> > > On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me,
> I
> > really appreciate. :)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Chiwan Park
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> > alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then
> > happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
> > >>
> > >> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> > >> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Chiwan Park
> > >>
> > >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> +1, like that approach
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com>.
Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions.
I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add a
suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my concerns.
Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java
artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact
*flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*.
Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and
*flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala 2.11.
We end up with a situation like this
- flink-pure-java
`- flink-some-scala-A
`- flink-some-scala-B
- flink-some-scala-B_2.11
We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project.
2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> Hi All,
> I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the PR.
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
>
> > On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me, I
> really appreciate. :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chiwan Park
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <
> alexander.s.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then
> happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
> >>
> >> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> >> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Chiwan Park
> >>
> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1, like that approach
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>.
Hi All,
I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the PR.
Regards,
Chiwan Park
[1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885
> On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me, I really appreciate. :)
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
>
>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
>>
>> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
>> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chiwan Park
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, like that approach
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>.
@Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me, I really appreciate. :)
Regards,
Chiwan Park
> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
>
> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
> > On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> +1, like that approach
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
>
>
>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com>.
@Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then happy
to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11).
2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>:
> Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Chiwan Park
>
> > On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> +1, like that approach
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
>
>
>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Chiwan Park <ch...@apache.org>.
Okay, I will apply this suggestion.
Regards,
Chiwan Park
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1, like that approach
>
> +1
>
> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org>.
On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1, like that approach
+1
I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org>.
On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1, like that approach
+1
I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-)
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>.
+1, like that approach
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> wrote:
> (adding dev@ to the conversation)
>
> Chiwan looked into the issue. It seems that we can not add the Scala
> version only to flink-scala, flink-streaming-scala, ....
> Since flink-runtime also needs scala all modules are affected by this.
>
> I would vote for naming the Scala 2.10 version of flink modules without a
> suffix:
> flink-java
> flink-core
> flink-runtime
>
> And for the Scala 2.11 builds:
> flink-java_2.11
> flink-core_2.11
> flink-runtime_2.11
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’m interested in working on this. :) I’ll assign to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chiwan Park
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Okay, it seems like we have consensus on this. Who is interested in
>> working on this? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for giving only those modules a version suffix which depend on Scala.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:03 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > There was already a discussion regarding the two options here [1], back
>> then we had a majority for giving all modules a scala suffix.
>> >
>> > I'm against giving all modules a suffix because we force our users to
>> migrate the name and its confusing for Java users (I was confused myself
>> when I was trying out Spark two years ago (back then I didn't know anything
>> about Scala ;) ))
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/477#issuecomment-82266786
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Good idea, Chiwan!
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi. I think that we don’t need deploy all modules with scala variation.
>> The pure java-based modules such as flink-java, flink-core,
>> flink-optimizers, …, etc. don’t need to be deployed with scala version
>> variation. We need only scala related modules such as flink-ml,
>> flink-runtime, flink-scala, …, etc. with version variation.
>> >
>> > So we can reduce a number of deployed modules.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Chiwan Park
>> >
>> > > On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree that we should ship a 2.11 build of Flink if downstream
>> projects need that.
>> > >
>> > > The only thing that we should keep in mind when doing this is that
>> the number of jars we're pushing to maven will explode (but that is fine)
>> > > We have currently 46 maven modules and we would create 4 versions of
>> each of the modules (hd1,hd2 x scala210,scala211) so we end up with 184
>> jars per release ;)
>> > >
>> > > The other big question that I have regarding this is how we want to
>> name the modules.
>> > > We could add the scala version to all the modules, like
>> "flink-java_2.10", which would mean that users have to change a bit more
>> when upgrading to the release supporting different scala versions.
>> > >
>> > > If we all agree on that, we can move on changing our maven setup.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Kostas Tzoumas <kt...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > Please do ping this list if you encounter any problems with Flink
>> during your project (you have done so already :-), but also if you find
>> that the Flink API needs additions to map Pig well to Flink
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Philipp Goetze <
>> philipp.goetze@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
>> > > Done. Can be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Philipp
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10.06.2015 15:29, Chiwan Park wrote:
>> > > But I think uploading Flink API with scala 2.11 to maven repository
>> is nice idea.
>> > > Could you create a JIRA issue?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Chiwan Park
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No. Currently, there are no Flink binaries with scala 2.11 which are
>> downloadable.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Chiwan Park
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Philipp Goetze <
>> philipp.goetze@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Thank you Chiwan!
>> > >
>> > > I did not know the master has a 2.11 profile.
>> > >
>> > > But there is no pre-built Flink with 2.11, which I could refer to in
>> sbt or maven, is it?
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Philipp
>> > >
>> > > On 10.06.2015 15:03, Chiwan Park wrote:
>> > > Hi. You can build Flink with Scala 2.11 with scala-2.11 profile in
>> master branch.
>> > > `mvn clean install -DskipTests -P \!scala-2.10,scala-2.11` command
>> builds Flink with Scala 2.11.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Chiwan Park
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Flavio Pompermaier <po...@okkam.it>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Nice!
>> > >
>> > > On 10 Jun 2015 14:49, "Philipp Goetze" <ph...@tu-ilmenau.de>
>> wrote:
>> > > Hi community!
>> > >
>> > > We started a new project called Piglet (
>> https://github.com/ksattler/piglet).
>> > > For that we use i.a. Flink as a backend. The project is based on
>> Scala 2.11. Thus we need a 2.11 build of Flink.
>> > >
>> > > Until now we used the 2.11 branch of the stratosphere project and
>> built Flink ourselves. Unfortunately this branch is not up-to-date.
>> > >
>> > > Do you have an official repository for Flink 0.9 (built with Scala
>> 2.11)?
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Philipp
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Flink 0.9 built with Scala 2.11
Posted by Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>.
+1, like that approach
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> wrote:
> (adding dev@ to the conversation)
>
> Chiwan looked into the issue. It seems that we can not add the Scala
> version only to flink-scala, flink-streaming-scala, ....
> Since flink-runtime also needs scala all modules are affected by this.
>
> I would vote for naming the Scala 2.10 version of flink modules without a
> suffix:
> flink-java
> flink-core
> flink-runtime
>
> And for the Scala 2.11 builds:
> flink-java_2.11
> flink-core_2.11
> flink-runtime_2.11
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’m interested in working on this. :) I’ll assign to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chiwan Park
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Okay, it seems like we have consensus on this. Who is interested in
>> working on this? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for giving only those modules a version suffix which depend on Scala.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:03 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > There was already a discussion regarding the two options here [1], back
>> then we had a majority for giving all modules a scala suffix.
>> >
>> > I'm against giving all modules a suffix because we force our users to
>> migrate the name and its confusing for Java users (I was confused myself
>> when I was trying out Spark two years ago (back then I didn't know anything
>> about Scala ;) ))
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/477#issuecomment-82266786
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Good idea, Chiwan!
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi. I think that we don’t need deploy all modules with scala variation.
>> The pure java-based modules such as flink-java, flink-core,
>> flink-optimizers, …, etc. don’t need to be deployed with scala version
>> variation. We need only scala related modules such as flink-ml,
>> flink-runtime, flink-scala, …, etc. with version variation.
>> >
>> > So we can reduce a number of deployed modules.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Chiwan Park
>> >
>> > > On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree that we should ship a 2.11 build of Flink if downstream
>> projects need that.
>> > >
>> > > The only thing that we should keep in mind when doing this is that
>> the number of jars we're pushing to maven will explode (but that is fine)
>> > > We have currently 46 maven modules and we would create 4 versions of
>> each of the modules (hd1,hd2 x scala210,scala211) so we end up with 184
>> jars per release ;)
>> > >
>> > > The other big question that I have regarding this is how we want to
>> name the modules.
>> > > We could add the scala version to all the modules, like
>> "flink-java_2.10", which would mean that users have to change a bit more
>> when upgrading to the release supporting different scala versions.
>> > >
>> > > If we all agree on that, we can move on changing our maven setup.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Kostas Tzoumas <kt...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > Please do ping this list if you encounter any problems with Flink
>> during your project (you have done so already :-), but also if you find
>> that the Flink API needs additions to map Pig well to Flink
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Philipp Goetze <
>> philipp.goetze@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
>> > > Done. Can be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2200
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Philipp
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10.06.2015 15:29, Chiwan Park wrote:
>> > > But I think uploading Flink API with scala 2.11 to maven repository
>> is nice idea.
>> > > Could you create a JIRA issue?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Chiwan Park
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Chiwan Park <ch...@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No. Currently, there are no Flink binaries with scala 2.11 which are
>> downloadable.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Chiwan Park
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Philipp Goetze <
>> philipp.goetze@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Thank you Chiwan!
>> > >
>> > > I did not know the master has a 2.11 profile.
>> > >
>> > > But there is no pre-built Flink with 2.11, which I could refer to in
>> sbt or maven, is it?
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Philipp
>> > >
>> > > On 10.06.2015 15:03, Chiwan Park wrote:
>> > > Hi. You can build Flink with Scala 2.11 with scala-2.11 profile in
>> master branch.
>> > > `mvn clean install -DskipTests -P \!scala-2.10,scala-2.11` command
>> builds Flink with Scala 2.11.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Chiwan Park
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Flavio Pompermaier <po...@okkam.it>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Nice!
>> > >
>> > > On 10 Jun 2015 14:49, "Philipp Goetze" <ph...@tu-ilmenau.de>
>> wrote:
>> > > Hi community!
>> > >
>> > > We started a new project called Piglet (
>> https://github.com/ksattler/piglet).
>> > > For that we use i.a. Flink as a backend. The project is based on
>> Scala 2.11. Thus we need a 2.11 build of Flink.
>> > >
>> > > Until now we used the 2.11 branch of the stratosphere project and
>> built Flink ourselves. Unfortunately this branch is not up-to-date.
>> > >
>> > > Do you have an official repository for Flink 0.9 (built with Scala
>> 2.11)?
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Philipp
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>