On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM John Rudolf Lewis <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I need an SQS source for my project that is using beam. A brief search did
> not turn up any in-progress work in this area. Please point me to the right
> repo if I missed it.
>

To my knowledge there is none and nobody has marked it in progress on
https://beam.apache.org/documentation/io/built-in/. It would be good to
create a JIRA issue on https://issues.apache.org/ and send a PR to add SQS
to the inprogress list referencing your JIRA. I added you as a contributor
in JIRA so you should be able to assign yourself to any issues that you
create.


> Assuming there is no in-progress effort, I would like to contribute an
> Amazon SQS source. I have a few questions before I begin.
>

Great, note that this is a good starting point for authoring an IO
transform: https://beam.apache.org/documentation/io/authoring-overview/


>
> It seems that the current AWS code is split into two different modules:
> sdk/java/io/amazon-web-services which contains the S3FileSystem,
> AwsOptions, etc, and sdk/java/io/kinesis which contains an unbounded source
> based on a kinesis topic. I'd like to add this source to the
> amazon-web-services module since I'd like to depend on AwsOptions. Does
> adding this source to the amazon-web-services module make sense?
>

Putting it inside of amazon-web-services makes a lot of sense. The Google
connectors all live within the one package and there has been discussion to
consolidate all the AWS stuff under amazon-web-services.


> Also, the kinesis source looks a touch more complex than other sources.
> Both the JMS and AMQP sources look like better examples to follow. Which
> existing source would be the best to model this contribution after?
>

Some of it has to do with how many ways a source can be read and how
complicated the watermark tracking but it would be best if the IO authors
comment on implementation details.


> If anyone has put some thoughts into this, or better yet some code, I'd
> appreciate hearing from you.
>
> Thanks!
>
>

Reply via email to