Including the experimental suffix in artifact names is not a good idea either because once we decide that it is not experimantal anymore this will be a breaking change for users who will need then to update its dependencies code. Also it is error-prone to use different mappings for directories and artifacts (even if possible).
May we reconsider this Kenn? I understand the motivation but I hardly see this making things better or more clear. Any runner user will end up reading the runner documentation and capability matrix so he will catch the current status that way. On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 8:35 AM Jozsef Bartok <jo...@hazelcast.com> wrote: > > I missed Ken's input when writing my previous mail. Sorry. > So, to recap: I should remove "experimental" from any directory names, but > find an other way of configuring the artifact so that it still has > "experimental" in it's name. > Right? > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jozsef Bartok <jo...@hazelcast.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, I'll gladly fix it, we aren't particularly keen to be labeled as >> experimental either.. >> >> Btw. initially the "experimental" word was only in the Gradle module name, >> but then there was some change >> ([BEAM-4046] decouple gradle project names and maven artifact ids - 4/2/19) >> which kind of ended up >> putting it in the directory name. Maybe I should have merged with that >> differently, but this is how >> it seemed consistent. >> >> Anyways, will fix it in my next PR. >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:53 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I see thanks Jozsef, marking things as Experimental was discussed but >>> we never agreed on doing this at the directory level. We can cover the >>> same ground by putting an annotation in the classes (in particular the >>> JetRunner and JetPipelineOptions classes which are the real public >>> interface, or in the documentation (in particular website), I do not >>> see how putting this in the directory name helps and if so we may need >>> to put this in many other directories which is far from ideal. Any >>> chance this can be fixed (jet-experimental -> jet) ? >>> >>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jozsef Bartok <jo...@hazelcast.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Ismaël! >>> > >>> > Quoting Kenn (from PR-8410): "We discussed on list that it would be >>> > better to have new things always start as experimental in a way that >>> > clearly distinguishes them from the core." >>> > >>> > Rgds >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:44 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I saw that the runner was merged but I don’t get why the foler is >>> >> called ‘runners/jet experimental’ and not simply ‘runners/jet’. Is it >>> >> because the runner does not pass ValidatesRunner? Or because the >>> >> contributors are few? I don’t really see any reason behind this >>> >> suffix. And even if the status is not mature that’s not different from >>> >> other already merged runners. >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:43 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Nice! That is *way* more than the PR I was looking for. I just meant >>> >> > that you could update the website/ directory. It is fine to keep the >>> >> > runner in your own repository if you want. >>> >> > >>> >> > But I think it is great if you want to contribute it to Apache Beam >>> >> > (hence donate it to the Apache Software Foundation). The benefits >>> >> > include: low-latency testing, free updates when someone does a >>> >> > refactor. Things to consider are: subject to ASF / Beam governance, >>> >> > PMC, commiters, subject to Beam's release cadence (and we might >>> >> > exclude from Beam releases for a little bit). Typically, we have kept >>> >> > runners on a branch until they are somewhat stable. I don't feel >>> >> > strongly about this for disjoint codebases that can easily be excluded >>> >> > from releases. We might want to suffix `-experimental` to the >>> >> > artifacts for some time. >>> >> > >>> >> > I commented on the PR about the necessary i.p. clearance steps. >>> >> > >>> >> > Kenn >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:59 AM jo...@hazelcast.com >>> >> > <jo...@hazelcast.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hi Kenn. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> It took me a while to migrate our code to the Beam repo, but I >>> >> >> finally have been able to create the Pull Request you asked for, this >>> >> >> is it: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8410 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Looking forward to your feedback! >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Best regards, >>> >> >> Jozsef >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On 2019/04/19 20:52:42, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >> >> > The ValidatesRunner tests are the best source we have for knowing >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > capabilities of a runner. Are there instructions for running the >>> >> >> > tests? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Assuming we can check it out, then just open a PR to the website >>> >> >> > with the >>> >> >> > current capabilities and caveats. Since it is a big deal and could >>> >> >> > use lots >>> >> >> > of eyes, I would share the PR link on this thread. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Kenn >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jozsef Bartok >>> >> >> > <jo...@hazelcast.com> wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > > Hi. We at Hazelcast Jet have been working for a while now to >>> >> >> > > implement a >>> >> >> > > Java Beam Runner (non-portable) based on Hazelcast Jet ( >>> >> >> > > https://jet.hazelcast.org/). The process is still ongoing ( >>> >> >> > > https://github.com/hazelcast/hazelcast-jet-beam-runner), but we >>> >> >> > > are >>> >> >> > > aiming for a fully functional, reliable Runner which can proudly >>> >> >> > > join the >>> >> >> > > Capability Matrix. For that purpose I would like to ask what’s >>> >> >> > > your process >>> >> >> > > of validating runners? We are already running the >>> >> >> > > @ValidatesRunner tests >>> >> >> > > and the Nexmark test suite, but beyond that what other steps do >>> >> >> > > we need to >>> >> >> > > take to get our Runner to the level it needs to be at? >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >
