The motivation for including the job as an example is to not have to maintain a separate Docker image. We would like to use the regular Flink 1.9 image for the playground and avoid to maintain an image that is slightly different from the regular 1.9 image.
Maintaining the job in a different repository or somewhere else would mean, that we need to have a proper release cycle for it as well. Having it among the other examples means it's included in the regular release. Best, Fabian Am Do., 8. Aug. 2019 um 09:47 Uhr schrieb Till Rohrmann < trohrm...@apache.org>: > Before backporting the playground PR to the release-1.9, I'd like to > understand why the ClickEventCount job needs to be part of the Flink > distribution. Looking at the example, it seems to only work in combination > with a Kafka cluster. Since it is not self-contained, it does not add much > value for a user who does not want to use the playgrounds. Moreover, we > already have the StateMachineExample job which can be used to read from > Kafka if a Kafka cluster is available. So my question would be why don't we > include the example job in the docker images for the playground? This would > be in my opinion a better separation of concerns. > > I've cross posted my question on the original PR as well. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:23 AM Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 to include this in 1.9.0, adding some examples doesn't look like new > > feature to me. > > BTW, I am also trying this tutorial based on release-1.9 branch, but > > blocked by: > > > > git clone --branch release-1.10-SNAPSHOT > > g...@github.com:apache/flink-playgrounds.git > > > > Neither 1.10 nor 1.9 exists in flink-playground yet. > > > > Best, > > Kurt > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:18 PM Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > I worked with Konstantin and reviewed the PR. > > > I think the playground is a great way to get started with Flink and > > explore > > > it's recovery mechanism and unique features like savepoints. > > > > > > I'm in favor of adding the required streaming example program for the > 1.9 > > > release unless there's a good technical argument against it. > > > > > > Best, Fabian > > > > > >
