You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by Hugo Da Cruz Louro <hl...@hortonworks.com> on 2016/11/23 17:34:14 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Branch for Apache Beam Runner
I somehow missed this email … I would like to contribute to this effort as well. Please keep me posted.
Thanks.
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1, waiting for that. :)
> Currently,there are API changes going on in Beam. It seem they plan to get
> that done by the end of 2016.
>
> ~Satish.
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 - Bobby
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:30 AM, Arun Mahadevan <
>> arunm@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On 10/19/16, 8:58 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If there are no objections, I’d like to create the feature branch and
>> push what I have so far. I’ve not had too much time lately to work on it,
>> but other’s have expressed interest in contributing so I’d like to make it
>> available.
>>>
>>> -Taylor
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 on the idea. I would love to contribute, but I doubt I will find
>> time to do it any time soon. - Bobby
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 12:05 AM, Satish Duggana <
>> satish.duggana@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Taylor,
>>>> I am interested in contributing to this effort. Gone through Beam APIs
>>>> earlier and had some initial thoughts on Storm runner. We can start with
>>>> existing core storm constructs but it is better to design in such a way
>>>> that these can be replaced with new APIs.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Satish.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:35 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm open to change, but yes, I started with core storm since it offers
>> the
>>>>> most flexibility wrt how Beam constructs are translated.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Roshan Naik <ro...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good idea. Will the Beam API be implemented to run on top Storm Core
>>>>>> primitives ?
>>>>>> -roshan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/15/16, 2:00 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I¹ve been tinkering with implementing an Apache Beam runner on top of
>>>>>>> Storm and would like to open it up so others in the community can
>>>>>>> contribute. To that end I¹d like to propose creating a feature branch
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> that work if there are others who are interested in getting
>> involved. We
>>>>>>> did that a while back when storm-sql was originally developed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, review requirements for that branch would be relaxed
>> during
>>>>>>> development, with a final, strict review before merging back to one
>> of
>>>>>>> our main branches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I¹d like to document what I have and future improvements in a
>> proposal
>>>>>>> document, and follow that with pushing the code to the feature branch
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> group collaboration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts? Anyone interested in contributing to such an effort?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Branch for Apache Beam Runner
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Erik is correct, that is the right branch. It was initially unmodified, but I just merged the initial pull request so others are open to create pull requests against that branch now.
-Taylor
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Erik Weathers <ew...@groupon.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hugo,
>
> This appears to be the branch:
>
> - https://github.com/apache/storm/tree/beam-runner
>
> - Erik
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro <hl...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I somehow missed this email … I would like to contribute to this effort as
>> well. Please keep me posted.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1, waiting for that. :)
>>> Currently,there are API changes going on in Beam. It seem they plan to
>> get
>>> that done by the end of 2016.
>>>
>>> ~Satish.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bobby Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com.invalid
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 - Bobby
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:30 AM, Arun Mahadevan <
>>>> arunm@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On 10/19/16, 8:58 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If there are no objections, I’d like to create the feature branch and
>>>> push what I have so far. I’ve not had too much time lately to work on
>> it,
>>>> but other’s have expressed interest in contributing so I’d like to make
>> it
>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Bobby Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 on the idea. I would love to contribute, but I doubt I will find
>>>> time to do it any time soon. - Bobby
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 12:05 AM, Satish Duggana <
>>>> satish.duggana@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taylor,
>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to this effort. Gone through Beam APIs
>>>>>> earlier and had some initial thoughts on Storm runner. We can start
>> with
>>>>>> existing core storm constructs but it is better to design in such a
>> way
>>>>>> that these can be replaced with new APIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Satish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:35 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm open to change, but yes, I started with core storm since it
>> offers
>>>> the
>>>>>>> most flexibility wrt how Beam constructs are translated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Roshan Naik <ro...@hortonworks.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good idea. Will the Beam API be implemented to run on top Storm Core
>>>>>>>> primitives ?
>>>>>>>> -roshan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/15/16, 2:00 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I¹ve been tinkering with implementing an Apache Beam runner on top
>> of
>>>>>>>>> Storm and would like to open it up so others in the community can
>>>>>>>>> contribute. To that end I¹d like to propose creating a feature
>> branch
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> that work if there are others who are interested in getting
>>>> involved. We
>>>>>>>>> did that a while back when storm-sql was originally developed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, review requirements for that branch would be relaxed
>>>> during
>>>>>>>>> development, with a final, strict review before merging back to one
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> our main branches.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I¹d like to document what I have and future improvements in a
>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>> document, and follow that with pushing the code to the feature
>> branch
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> group collaboration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts? Anyone interested in contributing to such an effort?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Branch for Apache Beam Runner
Posted by Erik Weathers <ew...@groupon.com.INVALID>.
Hugo,
This appears to be the branch:
- https://github.com/apache/storm/tree/beam-runner
- Erik
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro <hl...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
> I somehow missed this email … I would like to contribute to this effort as
> well. Please keep me posted.
> Thanks.
>
> > On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1, waiting for that. :)
> > Currently,there are API changes going on in Beam. It seem they plan to
> get
> > that done by the end of 2016.
> >
> > ~Satish.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bobby Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 - Bobby
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:30 AM, Arun Mahadevan <
> >> arunm@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On 10/19/16, 8:58 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If there are no objections, I’d like to create the feature branch and
> >> push what I have so far. I’ve not had too much time lately to work on
> it,
> >> but other’s have expressed interest in contributing so I’d like to make
> it
> >> available.
> >>>
> >>> -Taylor
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Bobby Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 on the idea. I would love to contribute, but I doubt I will find
> >> time to do it any time soon. - Bobby
> >>>>
> >>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 12:05 AM, Satish Duggana <
> >> satish.duggana@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Taylor,
> >>>> I am interested in contributing to this effort. Gone through Beam APIs
> >>>> earlier and had some initial thoughts on Storm runner. We can start
> with
> >>>> existing core storm constructs but it is better to design in such a
> way
> >>>> that these can be replaced with new APIs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Satish.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:35 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm open to change, but yes, I started with core storm since it
> offers
> >> the
> >>>>> most flexibility wrt how Beam constructs are translated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Roshan Naik <ro...@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good idea. Will the Beam API be implemented to run on top Storm Core
> >>>>>> primitives ?
> >>>>>> -roshan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 9/15/16, 2:00 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I¹ve been tinkering with implementing an Apache Beam runner on top
> of
> >>>>>>> Storm and would like to open it up so others in the community can
> >>>>>>> contribute. To that end I¹d like to propose creating a feature
> branch
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> that work if there are others who are interested in getting
> >> involved. We
> >>>>>>> did that a while back when storm-sql was originally developed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Basically, review requirements for that branch would be relaxed
> >> during
> >>>>>>> development, with a final, strict review before merging back to one
> >> of
> >>>>>>> our main branches.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I¹d like to document what I have and future improvements in a
> >> proposal
> >>>>>>> document, and follow that with pushing the code to the feature
> branch
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>> group collaboration.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any thoughts? Anyone interested in contributing to such an effort?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>