On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi guys
>
> @Kenn,
>
> I just wanted to mention that I did answered your question on
dependencies here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5a85caac41e796c2aa351d835b3483808ebbbd4512b480940d494439@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E

Ah, sorry! In that case there is no problem at all.


> I'm not in favor of having the 2 runners in one jar, the point about
having 2 jars was to:
>
> - avoid making promises to users on a work in progress runner (make it
explicit with a different jar)
> - avoid confusion for them (why are there 2 pipeline options? etc....)
>
> If the community believes that there is no confusion or wrong promises
with the one jar solution, we could leave the 2 runners in one jar.
>
> Maybe we could start a vote on that?

It seems unanimous among others to have one jar. There were some
suggestions of how to avoid promises and confusion, like Ryan's most recent
email. Did any of the ideas sound good to you?

Kenn


I have no objection to putting the experimental runner alongside the
> stable, mature runner.  We have some precedence with the portable
> spark runner, and that's worked out pretty well -- at least, I haven't
> heard any complaints from confused users!
>
> That being said:
>
> 1.  It really should be marked @Experimental in the code *and* clearly
> warned in API (javadoc) and documentation.
>
> 2.  Ideally, I'd like to see a warning banner in the logs when it's
> used, pointing to the stable SparkRunner and/or documentation on the
> current known issues.
>
> All my best, Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > regarding jars:
> >
> > I don't like 3 jars either.
> >
> >
> > Etienne
> >
> > On 31/10/2019 02:06, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> >
> > Very good points. We definitely ship a lot of code/features in very
> early stages, and there seems to be no problem.
> >
> > I intend mostly to leave this judgment to people like you who know
> better about Spark users.
> >
> > But I do think 1 or 2 jars is better than 3. I really don't like "3
> jars" and I did give two reasons:
> >
> > 1. diamond deps where things overlap
> > 2. figuring out which thing to depend on
> >
> > Both are annoying for users. I am not certain if it could lead to a real
> unsolvable situation. This is just a Java ecosystem problem so I feel
> qualified to comment.
> >
> > I did also ask if there were major dependency differences between the
> two that could cause problems for users. This question was dropped and no
> one cares to comment so I assume it is not an issue. So then I favor having
> just 1 jar with both runners.
> >
> > Kenn
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:46 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am still a bit lost about why we are discussing options without
> giving any
> >> arguments or reasons for the options? Why is 2 modules better than 3 or
> 3 better
> >> than 2, or even better, what forces us to have something different than
> a single
> >> module?
> >>
> >> What are the reasons for wanting to have separate jars? If the issue is
> that the
> >> code is unfinished or not passing the tests, the impact for end users
> is minimal
> >> because they cannot accidentally end up running the new runner, and if
> they
> >> decide to do so we can warn them it is at their own risk and not ready
> for
> >> production in the documentation + runner.
> >>
> >> If the fear is that new code may end up being intertwined with the
> classic and
> >> portable runners and have some side effects. We have the
> ValidatesRunner +
> >> Nexmark in the CI to cover this so again I do not see what is the
> problem that
> >> requires modules to be separate.
> >>
> >> If the issue is being uncomfortable about having in-progress code in
> released
> >> artifacts we have been doing this in Beam forever, for example most of
> the work
> >> on portability and Schema/SQL, and all of those were still part of
> artifacts
> >> long time before they were ready for prime use, so I still don't see
> why this
> >> case is different to require different artifacts.
> >>
> >> I have the impression we are trying to solve a non-issue by adding a
> lot of
> >> artificial complexity (in particular to the users), or am I missing
> something
> >> else?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 7:40 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I mean that we ship just 2 jars.
> >> >
> >> > And since Spark users always build an uber jar, they can still depend
> on both of ours and be able to switch runners with a flag.
> >> >
> >> > I really dislike projects shipping overlapping jars. It is confusing
> and causes major diamond dependency problems.
> >> >
> >> > Kenn
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:12 AM Alexey Romanenko <
> aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, agree, two jars included in uber jar will work in the similar
> way. Though having 3 jars looks still quite confusing for me.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 29 Oct 2019, at 23:54, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it just as easy to have two jars and build an uber jar with both
> included? Then the runner can still be toggled with a flag.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kenn
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:38 AM Alexey Romanenko <
> aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hmm, I don’t think that jar size should play a big role comparing
> to the whole size of shaded jar of users job. Even more, I think it will be
> quite confusing for users to choose which jar to use if we will have 3
> different ones for similar purposes. Though, let’s see what others think.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 29 Oct 2019, at 15:32, Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Alexey,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for your opinion !
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Comments inline
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Etienne
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 28/10/2019 17:34, Alexey Romanenko wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Let me share some of my thoughts on this.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - shall we filter out the package name from the release?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Until new runner is not ready to be used in production (or, at
> least, be used for beta testing but users should be clearly warned about
> that in this case), I believe we need to filter out its classes from
> published jar to avoid a confusion.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes that is what I think also
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - should we release 2 jars: one for the old and one for the new
> ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - should we release 3 jars: one for the new, one for the new
> and one for both ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Once new runner will be released, then I think we need to provide
> only one single jar and allow user to switch between different Spark
> runners with CLI option.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I would vote for 3 jars: one for new, one for old, and one for
> both. Indeed, in some cases, users are looking very closely at the size of
> jars. This solution meets all use cases
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - should we create a special entry to the capability matrix ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sure, since it has its own uniq characteristics and implementation,
> but again, only once new runner will be "officially released".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 28 Oct 2019, at 10:27, Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Any opinions on the point2 communication to users ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Etienne
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 24/10/2019 15:44, Etienne Chauchot wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm glad to announce that the PR for the merge to master of the new
> runner based on Spark Structured Streaming framework is submitted:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9866
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. Regarding the status of the runner:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -the runner passes 93% of the validates runner tests in batch mode.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Streaming mode is barely started (waiting for the
> multi-aggregations support in spark Structured Streaming framework from the
> Spark community)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Runner can execute Nexmark
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Some things are not wired up yet
> >> >>>
> >> >>>   -Beam Schemas not wired with Spark Schemas
> >> >>>
> >> >>>   -Optional features of the model not implemented: state api, timer
> api, splittable doFn api, …
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2. Regarding the communication to users:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - for reasons explained by Ismael: the runner is in the same module
> as the "older" one. But it is in a different sub-package and both runners
> share the same build.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - How should we communicate to users:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - shall we filter out the package name from the release?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - should we release 2 jars: one for the old and one for the new
> ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - should we release 3 jars: one for the new, one for the new
> and one for both ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     - should we create a special entry to the capability matrix ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> WDYT ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Best
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Etienne
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 23/10/2019 19:11, Mikhail Gryzykhin wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +1 to merge.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It is worth keeping things in master with explicitly marked status.
> It will make effort more visible to users and easier to get feedback upon.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --Mikhail
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:36 AM Etienne Chauchot <
> echauc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The new spark runner now supports beam coders and passes 93% of
> the batch validates runner tests (+4%). I think it is time to merge it to
> master. I will submit a PR in the coming days.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> next steps: support schemas and thus better leverage catalyst
> optimizer (among other things optims based on data), port perfs optims that
> were done in the current runner.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Best
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Etienne
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 11/10/2019 22:48, Pablo Estrada wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> +1 for merging : )
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:43 PM Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sounds like a good plan to me.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:20 AM Etienne Chauchot <
> echauc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Comments inline
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 10/10/2019 23:44, Ismaël Mejía wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> The earlier we get to master the better to encourage not only
> code
> >> >>>>>> contributions but as important to have early user feedback.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Question is: do we keep the "old" spark runner for a while or
> not (or just keep on previous version/tag on git) ?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> It is still too early to even start discussing when to remove the
> >> >>>>>> classical runner given that the new runner is still a WIP.
> However the
> >> >>>>>> overall goal is that this runner becomes the de-facto one once
> the VR
> >> >>>>>> tests and the performance become at least equal to the classical
> >> >>>>>> runner, in the meantime the best for users is that they co-exist,
> >> >>>>>> let’s not forget that the other runner has been already battle
> tested
> >> >>>>>> for more than 3 years and has had lots of improvements in the
> last
> >> >>>>>> year.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> +1 on what Ismael says: no soon removal,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> The plan I had in mind at first (that I showed at the apacheCon)
> was this but I'm proposing moving the first gray label to before the red
> box.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> <beogijnhpieapoll.png>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I don't think the number of commits should be an issue--we
> shouldn't
> >> >>>>>> just squash years worth of history away. (OTOH, if this is a
> case of
> >> >>>>>> this branch containing lots of little, irrelevant commits that
> would
> >> >>>>>> have normally been squashed away in the normal review process we
> do
> >> >>>>>> for the main branch, then, yes, some cleanup could be nice.)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> About the commits we should encourage a clear history but we
> have also
> >> >>>>>> to remove useless commits that are still present in the branch,
> >> >>>>>> commits of the “Fix errorprone” / “Cleaning” kind and even
> commits
> >> >>>>>> that make a better narrative sense together should be probably
> >> >>>>>> squashed, because they do not bring much to the history. It is
> not
> >> >>>>>> about more or less commits it is about its relevance as Robert
> >> >>>>>> mentions.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I think our experiences with things that go to master early have
> been very good. So I am in favor ASAP. We can exclude it from releases
> easily until it is ready for end users.
> >> >>>>>> I have the same question as Robert - how much is modifications
> and how much is new? I notice it is in a subdirectory of the
> beam-runners-spark module.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> In its current form we cannot exclude it but this relates to the
> other
> >> >>>>>> question, so better to explain a bit of history: The new runner
> used
> >> >>>>>> to live in its own module and subdirectory because it is a full
> blank
> >> >>>>>> page rewrite and the decision was not to use any of the classical
> >> >>>>>> runner classes to not be constrained by its evolution.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> However the reason to put it back in the same module as a
> subdirectory
> >> >>>>>> was to encourage early use, in more detail: The way you deploy
> spark
> >> >>>>>> jobs today is usually by packaging and staging an uber jar
> (~200MB of
> >> >>>>>> pure dependency joy) that contains the user pipeline classes, the
> >> >>>>>> spark runner module and its dependencies. If we have two spark
> runners
> >> >>>>>> in separate modules the user would need to repackage and redeploy
> >> >>>>>> their pipelines every time they want to switch from the classical
> >> >>>>>> Spark runner to the structured streaming runner which is painful
> and
> >> >>>>>> time and space consuming compared with the one module approach
> where
> >> >>>>>> they just change the name of the runner class and that’s it. The
> idea
> >> >>>>>> here is to make easy for users to test the new runner, but at
> the same
> >> >>>>>> time to make easy to come back to the classical runner in case
> of any
> >> >>>>>> issue.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Ismaël
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:02 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I think our experiences with things that go to master early have
> been very good. So I am in favor ASAP. We can exclude it from releases
> easily until it is ready for end users.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I have the same question as Robert - how much is modifications
> and how much is new? I notice it is in a subdirectory of the
> beam-runners-spark module.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I did not see any major changes to dependencies but I will also
> ask if it has major version differences so that you might want a separate
> artifact?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Kenn
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:50 AM Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:39 AM Etienne Chauchot <
> echauc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> You probably know that there has been for several months an work
> >> >>>>>> developing a new Spark runner based on Spark Structured Streaming
> >> >>>>>> framework. This work is located in a feature branch here:
> >> >>>>>>
> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/spark-runner_structured-streaming
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> To attract more contributors and get some user feedback, we
> think it is
> >> >>>>>> time to merge it to master. Before doing so, some steps need to
> be achieved:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - finish the work on spark Encoders (that allow to call Beam
> coders)
> >> >>>>>> because, right now, the runner is in an unstable state (some
> transforms
> >> >>>>>> use the new way of doing ser/de and some use the old one, making
> a
> >> >>>>>> pipeline incoherent toward serialization)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - clean history: The history contains commits from November
> 2018, so
> >> >>>>>> there is a good amount of work, thus a consequent number of
> commits.
> >> >>>>>> They were already squashed but not from September 2019
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I don't think the number of commits should be an issue--we
> shouldn't
> >> >>>>>> just squash years worth of history away. (OTOH, if this is a
> case of
> >> >>>>>> this branch containing lots of little, irrelevant commits that
> would
> >> >>>>>> have normally been squashed away in the normal review process we
> do
> >> >>>>>> for the main branch, then, yes, some cleanup could be nice.)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Regarding status:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - the runner passes 89% of the validates runner tests in batch
> mode. We
> >> >>>>>> hope to pass more with the new Encoders
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - Streaming mode is barely started (waiting for the
> multi-aggregations
> >> >>>>>> support in spark SS framework from the Spark community)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - Runner can execute Nexmark
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - Some things are not wired up yet
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>      - Beam Schemas not wired with Spark Schemas
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>      - Optional features of the model not implemented:  state
> api, timer
> >> >>>>>> api, splittable doFn api, …
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> WDYT, can we merge it to master once the 2 steps are done ?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I think that as long as it sits parallel to the existing runner,
> and
> >> >>>>>> is clearly marked with its status, it makes sense to me. How many
> >> >>>>>> changes does it make to the existing codebase (as opposed to add
> new
> >> >>>>>> code)?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
>

Reply via email to