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 <ches...@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 > > >
