You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> on 2019/12/16 16:52:18 UTC
[DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
vendor-specific documentation[1].
The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we should provide
on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving towards
offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline conversation
with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look like[2].
Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of off the top
of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is not the
conversation we are having here.
There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve here.
1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available as it can
be important in growing adoption within enterprises
2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
3) Remain neutral
Please let me know what you think
Seth
[1]
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
[2]
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Robert.
Bowen, in the spirit of remaining neutral, I decided to put them in alphabetical order.
Seth
> On Dec 20, 2019, at 3:34 AM, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've assigned you to the ticket.
> You've convinced me that the "Deployment Model" thing was not a good idea.
>
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:35 AM Bowen Li <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Really cool. I especially like the list of tags on "Ververica Platform"!
>>
>> BTW, why is "Ververica Platform" placed at the last? I won't feel bothered
>> if we move it to the top.
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:56 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure, I think most all the options other than EMR abstract that
>>> component away.
>>>
>>> I've also opened a ticket if a commiter could please assign it to my
>> Jira:
>>> sjwiesman
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15337
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:29 AM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was actually referring to "YARN", "Kubernetes", "Mesos".
>>>> If people know that AWS EMR is using YARN, they know which
>> documentation
>>> to
>>>> look for in Flink.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Konstantin Knauf <
>>> konstantin@ververica.com
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 This gives a better overview of the deployment targets and shows
>> our
>>>>> prospective users that they can rely on a broad set of vendors, if
>> help
>>>> is
>>>>> needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess, Robert means if the vendor offers a managed service (like
>> AWS
>>>>> Kinesis Analytics), or licenses software (like Ververica Platform).
>>> This
>>>>> would be beneficial, but on the other hand the categories/terms
>>> (managed,
>>>>> hosted, "serverless", self-managed) are not so well-defined in my
>>>>> experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:46 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <
>> rmetzger@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to the general idea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
>>>>>>> Environments" as properties for the vendors.
>>>>>>> I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this
>>> page
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <
>>>> trohrmann@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup
>>>> and I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1
>>> for
>>>>>>>> offering
>>>>>>>>> links to 3rd party integrations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <
>>>> sjwiesman@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on
>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>> vendor-specific documentation[1].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what
>> we
>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving
>>>>> towards
>>>>>>>>>> offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an
>> offline
>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>>> with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might
>> look
>>>>>>> like[2].
>>>>>>>>>> Please note that I included a few vendors that I could
>> think
>>> of
>>>>> off
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> top
>>>>>>>>>> of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but
>> that
>>>> is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> conversation we are having here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are three competing goals that we are trying to
>> achieve
>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is
>>>> available
>>>>> as
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> be important in growing adoption within enterprises
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Remain neutral
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seth
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
>>>>>
>>>>> +49 160 91394525
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
>>>>> Conference
>>>>>
>>>>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ververica GmbH
>>>>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
>>>>> Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason,
>> Ji
>>>>> (Tony) Cheng
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>.
I've assigned you to the ticket.
You've convinced me that the "Deployment Model" thing was not a good idea.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:35 AM Bowen Li <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really cool. I especially like the list of tags on "Ververica Platform"!
>
> BTW, why is "Ververica Platform" placed at the last? I won't feel bothered
> if we move it to the top.
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:56 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure, I think most all the options other than EMR abstract that
> > component away.
> >
> > I've also opened a ticket if a commiter could please assign it to my
> Jira:
> > sjwiesman
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15337
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:29 AM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was actually referring to "YARN", "Kubernetes", "Mesos".
> > > If people know that AWS EMR is using YARN, they know which
> documentation
> > to
> > > look for in Flink.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Konstantin Knauf <
> > konstantin@ververica.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 This gives a better overview of the deployment targets and shows
> our
> > > > prospective users that they can rely on a broad set of vendors, if
> help
> > > is
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > I guess, Robert means if the vendor offers a managed service (like
> AWS
> > > > Kinesis Analytics), or licenses software (like Ververica Platform).
> > This
> > > > would be beneficial, but on the other hand the categories/terms
> > (managed,
> > > > hosted, "serverless", self-managed) are not so well-defined in my
> > > > experience.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:46 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Seth
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <
> rmetzger@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 to the general idea
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
> > > > > > Environments" as properties for the vendors.
> > > > > > I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this
> > page
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <
> > > trohrmann@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup
> > > and I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1
> > for
> > > > > > > offering
> > > > > > > > links to 3rd party integrations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Till
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <
> > > sjwiesman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on
> > > dropping
> > > > > > > > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving
> > > > towards
> > > > > > > > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an
> offline
> > > > > > > conversation
> > > > > > > > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might
> look
> > > > > > like[2].
> > > > > > > > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could
> think
> > of
> > > > off
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but
> that
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > conversation we are having here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to
> achieve
> > > > here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is
> > > available
> > > > as
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > > > > > > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > > > > > > > 3) Remain neutral
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Seth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
> > > >
> > > > +49 160 91394525
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> > > > Conference
> > > >
> > > > Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ververica GmbH
> > > > Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> > > > Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason,
> Ji
> > > > (Tony) Cheng
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Bowen Li <bo...@gmail.com>.
Really cool. I especially like the list of tags on "Ververica Platform"!
BTW, why is "Ververica Platform" placed at the last? I won't feel bothered
if we move it to the top.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:56 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure, I think most all the options other than EMR abstract that
> component away.
>
> I've also opened a ticket if a commiter could please assign it to my Jira:
> sjwiesman
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15337
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:29 AM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I was actually referring to "YARN", "Kubernetes", "Mesos".
> > If people know that AWS EMR is using YARN, they know which documentation
> to
> > look for in Flink.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Konstantin Knauf <
> konstantin@ververica.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 This gives a better overview of the deployment targets and shows our
> > > prospective users that they can rely on a broad set of vendors, if help
> > is
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > I guess, Robert means if the vendor offers a managed service (like AWS
> > > Kinesis Analytics), or licenses software (like Ververica Platform).
> This
> > > would be beneficial, but on the other hand the categories/terms
> (managed,
> > > hosted, "serverless", self-managed) are not so well-defined in my
> > > experience.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:46 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
> > > >
> > > > Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
> > > >
> > > > Seth
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to the general idea
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
> > > > > Environments" as properties for the vendors.
> > > > > I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this
> page
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <
> > trohrmann@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup
> > and I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1
> for
> > > > > > offering
> > > > > > > links to 3rd party integrations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Till
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <
> > sjwiesman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on
> > dropping
> > > > > > > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we
> > > should
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving
> > > towards
> > > > > > > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline
> > > > > > conversation
> > > > > > > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look
> > > > > like[2].
> > > > > > > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think
> of
> > > off
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > conversation we are having here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve
> > > here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is
> > available
> > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > > > > > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > > > > > > 3) Remain neutral
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Seth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
> > >
> > > +49 160 91394525
> > >
> > >
> > > Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> > > Conference
> > >
> > > Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ververica GmbH
> > > Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> > > Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason, Ji
> > > (Tony) Cheng
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>.
I'm not sure, I think most all the options other than EMR abstract that
component away.
I've also opened a ticket if a commiter could please assign it to my Jira:
sjwiesman
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15337
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:29 AM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> wrote:
> I was actually referring to "YARN", "Kubernetes", "Mesos".
> If people know that AWS EMR is using YARN, they know which documentation to
> look for in Flink.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Konstantin Knauf <konstantin@ververica.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 This gives a better overview of the deployment targets and shows our
> > prospective users that they can rely on a broad set of vendors, if help
> is
> > needed.
> >
> > I guess, Robert means if the vendor offers a managed service (like AWS
> > Kinesis Analytics), or licenses software (like Ververica Platform). This
> > would be beneficial, but on the other hand the categories/terms (managed,
> > hosted, "serverless", self-managed) are not so well-defined in my
> > experience.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:46 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
> > >
> > > Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
> > >
> > > Seth
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to the general idea
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
> > > > Environments" as properties for the vendors.
> > > > I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this page
> > > >
> > > > [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <
> trohrmann@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup
> and I
> > > > think
> > > > > > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for
> > > > > offering
> > > > > > links to 3rd party integrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Till
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <
> sjwiesman@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on
> dropping
> > > > > > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we
> > should
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving
> > towards
> > > > > > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline
> > > > > conversation
> > > > > > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look
> > > > like[2].
> > > > > > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of
> > off
> > > > the
> > > > > > top
> > > > > > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that
> is
> > > not
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > conversation we are having here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve
> > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is
> available
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > > > > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > > > > > 3) Remain neutral
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know what you think
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
> >
> > +49 160 91394525
> >
> >
> > Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> > Conference
> >
> > Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> >
> > --
> > Ververica GmbH
> > Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> > Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason, Ji
> > (Tony) Cheng
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>.
I was actually referring to "YARN", "Kubernetes", "Mesos".
If people know that AWS EMR is using YARN, they know which documentation to
look for in Flink.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Konstantin Knauf <ko...@ververica.com>
wrote:
> +1 This gives a better overview of the deployment targets and shows our
> prospective users that they can rely on a broad set of vendors, if help is
> needed.
>
> I guess, Robert means if the vendor offers a managed service (like AWS
> Kinesis Analytics), or licenses software (like Ververica Platform). This
> would be beneficial, but on the other hand the categories/terms (managed,
> hosted, "serverless", self-managed) are not so well-defined in my
> experience.
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:46 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
> >
> > Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
> >
> > Seth
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to the general idea
> > >
> > > Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
> > > Environments" as properties for the vendors.
> > > I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this page
> > >
> > > [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup and I
> > > think
> > > > > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for
> > > > offering
> > > > > links to 3rd party integrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Till
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
> > > > > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we
> should
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving
> towards
> > > > > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline
> > > > conversation
> > > > > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look
> > > like[2].
> > > > > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of
> off
> > > the
> > > > > top
> > > > > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is
> > not
> > > > the
> > > > > > conversation we are having here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve
> here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available
> as
> > > it
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > > > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > > > > 3) Remain neutral
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know what you think
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
>
> +49 160 91394525
>
>
> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
>
>
> --
>
> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> Conference
>
> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
>
> --
>
> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>
> --
> Ververica GmbH
> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason, Ji
> (Tony) Cheng
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Konstantin Knauf <ko...@ververica.com>.
+1 This gives a better overview of the deployment targets and shows our
prospective users that they can rely on a broad set of vendors, if help is
needed.
I guess, Robert means if the vendor offers a managed service (like AWS
Kinesis Analytics), or licenses software (like Ververica Platform). This
would be beneficial, but on the other hand the categories/terms (managed,
hosted, "serverless", self-managed) are not so well-defined in my
experience.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:46 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
>
> Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
>
> Seth
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to the general idea
> >
> > Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
> > Environments" as properties for the vendors.
> > I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this page
> >
> > [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup and I
> > think
> > > > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for
> > > offering
> > > > links to 3rd party integrations.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
> > > > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > > > >
> > > > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we should
> > > > provide
> > > > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving towards
> > > > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline
> > > conversation
> > > > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look
> > like[2].
> > > > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of off
> > the
> > > > top
> > > > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is
> not
> > > the
> > > > > conversation we are having here.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available as
> > it
> > > > can
> > > > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > > > 3) Remain neutral
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know what you think
> > > > >
> > > > > Seth
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
+49 160 91394525
Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
--
Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
Conference
Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
--
Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
--
Ververica GmbH
Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason, Ji
(Tony) Cheng
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>.
Happy to see there seems to be a consensus.
Robert, can you elaborate on what you mean by "deployment model"?
Seth
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 to the general idea
>
> Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
> Environments" as properties for the vendors.
> I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this page
>
> [1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup and I
> think
> > > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for
> > offering
> > > links to 3rd party integrations.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
> > > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > > >
> > > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we should
> > > provide
> > > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving towards
> > > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline
> > conversation
> > > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look
> like[2].
> > > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of off
> the
> > > top
> > > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is not
> > the
> > > > conversation we are having here.
> > > >
> > > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve here.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available as
> it
> > > can
> > > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > > 3) Remain neutral
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know what you think
> > > >
> > > > Seth
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>.
+1 to the general idea
Maybe we could add "Deployment Model" in addition to "Supported
Environments" as properties for the vendors.
I'd say Cloudera, Eventador and Huawei [1] are missing from this page
[1]https://www.huaweicloud.com/en-us/product/cs.html
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:05 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup and I think
> > this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for
> offering
> > links to 3rd party integrations.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
> > > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> > >
> > > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we should
> > provide
> > > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving towards
> > > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline
> conversation
> > > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look like[2].
> > > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of off the
> > top
> > > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is not
> the
> > > conversation we are having here.
> > >
> > > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve here.
> > >
> > > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available as it
> > can
> > > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > > 3) Remain neutral
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think
> > >
> > > Seth
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>.
+1 for your proposed solution, Seth!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup and I think
> this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for offering
> links to 3rd party integrations.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
> > vendor-specific documentation[1].
> >
> > The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we should
> provide
> > on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving towards
> > offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline conversation
> > with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look like[2].
> > Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of off the
> top
> > of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is not the
> > conversation we are having here.
> >
> > There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve here.
> >
> > 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available as it
> can
> > be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> > 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> > 3) Remain neutral
> >
> > Please let me know what you think
> >
> > Seth
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flink docs vendor table
Posted by Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>.
Thanks for continuing this discussion Seth. I like the mockup and I think
this is a good improvement. Modulo the completeness check, +1 for offering
links to 3rd party integrations.
Cheers,
Till
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:04 PM Seth Wiesman <sj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This discussion is a follow up to the previous thread on dropping
> vendor-specific documentation[1].
>
> The conversation ended unresolved on the question of what we should provide
> on the Apache Flink docs. The consensus seemed to be moving towards
> offering a table with links to 3rd parties. After an offline conversation
> with Robert, I have drafted a mock-up of what that might look like[2].
> Please note that I included a few vendors that I could think of off the top
> of my head, the list in this picture is not complete but that is not the
> conversation we are having here.
>
> There are three competing goals that we are trying to achieve here.
>
> 1) Provide information to users that vendor support is available as it can
> be important in growing adoption within enterprises
> 2) Be maintainable by the open-source Flink community
> 3) Remain neutral
>
> Please let me know what you think
>
> Seth
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-vendor-specific-deployment-documentation-td35457.html
> [2]
>
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sjwiesman/bb90f0765148c15051bcc91092367851/raw/42c0a1e9240f1c5808a053f8ff5965828cca96d5/mockup.png
>