Storm Implementation of Pirk

[Chris Harris <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hi All,

I am taking the WIP tag off of the Storm implementation for Pirk.  It
passes all tests and provides accurate results when run on a Storm
cluster.  The only negative I found was that I had to downgrade the log4j
version from 2.6.2 to 2.1.  We discussed some possibilities for shading in
the comments on the PR, but since we have been discussing moving to modules
soon, I would think that leaving it at 2.1 can be a feasible temporary
solution.  (I waded through the change log at
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/changes-report.html#a2.6.2 and didnt'
see much loss in using the older version, but maybe somebody more logger
savvy than I can decide).  We can manage handling this and further
improvements with JIRA.  I have attached some documentation which is going
to be placed on the website.

Chris

Re: Storm Implementation of Pirk

[Suneel Marthi <su...@gmail.com>]

+1 to go with log4j2 - 2.1 as a temporary solution.

+1 to merge this PR



On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Chris Harris <ch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I am taking the WIP tag off of the Storm implementation for Pirk.  It
> passes all tests and provides accurate results when run on a Storm
> cluster.  The only negative I found was that I had to downgrade the log4j
> version from 2.6.2 to 2.1.  We discussed some possibilities for shading in
> the comments on the PR, but since we have been discussing moving to modules
> soon, I would think that leaving it at 2.1 can be a feasible temporary
> solution.  (I waded through the change log at http://logging.apache.org/
> log4j/2.x/changes-report.html#a2.6.2 and didnt' see much loss in using
> the older version, but maybe somebody more logger savvy than I can
> decide).  We can manage handling this and further improvements with JIRA.
> I have attached some documentation which is going to be placed on the
> website.
>
> Chris
>
>