You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@flink.apache.org by Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com> on 2018/10/01 08:55:40 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
+1 to drop it.
Thanks, Fabian
Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Niels Basjes <ni...@basj.es>:
> I would drop it.
>
> Niels Basjes
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, <k....@data-artisans.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
> > stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kostas
> >
> > > On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 to drop it.
> > >
> > > It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
> > > module sparse often means that there is low interest.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > tison.
> > >
> > >
> > > 远远 <zh...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月29日周六 下午2:16写道：
> > >
> > >> +1， it‘s time to drop it😂
> > >>
> > >> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) <wa...@aliyun.com> 于2018年9月29日周六
> > >> 下午1:53写道：
> > >>
> > >>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> 发件人：Jeff Carter <jp...@gmail.com>
> > >>> 发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
> > >>> 收件人：dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > >>> 抄 送：chesnay <ch...@apache.org>; Till Rohrmann <
> trohrmann@apache.org
> > >;
> > >>> user <us...@flink.apache.org>
> > >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 to drop it.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng <ch...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best, Hequn
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM Chesnay Schepler <
> chesnay@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I'm very much in favor of dropping it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO
> > we've
> > >>>>> reached the point where we should cull some of the more obscure
> ones.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint,
> offers
> > too
> > >>>>> little value.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
> > compatible,
> > >>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration
> to
> > >>>>> Flink APIs.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
> > if we
> > >>>>> drop it
> > >>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 28.09.2018 15:22, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm
> > >>>>>> compatibility layer flink-strom.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed that some
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> parts of flink-storm rely on the legacy Flink client. In fact, at
> > the
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> moment flink-storm does not work together with Flink's new
> > distributed
> > >>>>>> architecture.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's
> Storm
> > >>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
> > >>>> architecture
> > >>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because
> once
> > we
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
> > newer
> > >>>>>> Flink versions.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
> > particular
> > >>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>> Till
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
+1 for dropping it
> On 1. Oct 2018, at 10:55, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to drop it.
>
> Thanks, Fabian
>
> Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Niels Basjes <ni...@basj.es>:
>
>> I would drop it.
>>
>> Niels Basjes
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, <k....@data-artisans.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
>>> stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kostas
>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to drop it.
>>>>
>>>> It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
>>>> module sparse often means that there is low interest.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> tison.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 远远 <zh...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月29日周六 下午2:16写道：
>>>>
>>>>> +1， it‘s time to drop it😂
>>>>>
>>>>> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) <wa...@aliyun.com> 于2018年9月29日周六
>>>>> 下午1:53写道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 发件人：Jeff Carter <jp...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
>>>>>> 收件人：dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
>>>>>> 抄 送：chesnay <ch...@apache.org>; Till Rohrmann <
>> trohrmann@apache.org
>>>> ;
>>>>>> user <us...@flink.apache.org>
>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to drop it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng <ch...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Hequn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM Chesnay Schepler <
>> chesnay@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm very much in favor of dropping it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO
>>> we've
>>>>>>>> reached the point where we should cull some of the more obscure
>> ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint,
>> offers
>>> too
>>>>>>>> little value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
>>> compatible,
>>>>>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration
>> to
>>>>>>>> Flink APIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
>>> if we
>>>>>>>> drop it
>>>>>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28.09.2018 15:22, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm
>>>>>>>>> compatibility layer flink-strom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed that some
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parts of flink-storm rely on the legacy Flink client. In fact, at
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moment flink-storm does not work together with Flink's new
>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's
>> Storm
>>>>>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
>>>>>>> architecture
>>>>>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because
>> once
>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
>>> newer
>>>>>>>>> Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
+1 for dropping it
> On 1. Oct 2018, at 10:55, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to drop it.
>
> Thanks, Fabian
>
> Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Niels Basjes <ni...@basj.es>:
>
>> I would drop it.
>>
>> Niels Basjes
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, <k....@data-artisans.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
>>> stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kostas
>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to drop it.
>>>>
>>>> It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
>>>> module sparse often means that there is low interest.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> tison.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 远远 <zh...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月29日周六 下午2:16写道：
>>>>
>>>>> +1， it‘s time to drop it😂
>>>>>
>>>>> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) <wa...@aliyun.com> 于2018年9月29日周六
>>>>> 下午1:53写道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 发件人：Jeff Carter <jp...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
>>>>>> 收件人：dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
>>>>>> 抄 送：chesnay <ch...@apache.org>; Till Rohrmann <
>> trohrmann@apache.org
>>>> ;
>>>>>> user <us...@flink.apache.org>
>>>>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to drop it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng <ch...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Hequn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM Chesnay Schepler <
>> chesnay@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm very much in favor of dropping it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO
>>> we've
>>>>>>>> reached the point where we should cull some of the more obscure
>> ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint,
>> offers
>>> too
>>>>>>>> little value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
>>> compatible,
>>>>>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration
>> to
>>>>>>>> Flink APIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
>>> if we
>>>>>>>> drop it
>>>>>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28.09.2018 15:22, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm
>>>>>>>>> compatibility layer flink-strom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed that some
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parts of flink-storm rely on the legacy Flink client. In fact, at
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moment flink-storm does not work together with Flink's new
>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's
>> Storm
>>>>>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
>>>>>>> architecture
>>>>>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because
>> once
>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
>>> newer
>>>>>>>>> Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>