Hi Karim, Sorry you did not have the best first time experience. You certainly did everything right which I definitely appreciate.
The problem in that particular case, as I see it, is that RabbitMQ is not very actively maintained and therefore it is not easy too find a committer willing to take on this topic. The point of connectors not being properly maintained was raised a few times in the past on the ML. One of the ideas how to improve the situation there was to start a https://flink-packages.org/ page. The idea is to ask active users of certain connectors to maintain those connectors outside of the core project, while giving them a platform within the community where they can make their modules visible. That way it is possible to overcome the lack of capabilities within the core committers without loosing much on the visibility. I would kindly ask you to consider that path, if you are interested. You can of course also wait/reach out to more committers if you feel strong about contributing those changes back to the Flink repository itself. Best, Dawid On 30/04/2020 07:29, seneg...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to the mailing list and to contributing in Big opensource projects > in general and i don't know if i did something wrong or should be more > patient :) > > I put a topic for discussion as per the contribution guide " > https://flink.apache.org/contributing/how-to-contribute.html"; almost a week > ago and since what i propose is not backward compatible it needs to be > discussed here before opening a ticket and moving forward. > > So my question is. Will someone pick the discussion up ? or at least > someone would say that this is not the way to go ? or should i assume from > the silence that it's not important / relevant to the project ? Should i > track the author of the connector and send him directly ? > > Thank you for your time. > > Regards, > Karim Mansour > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:17 AM seneg...@gmail.com <seneg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I want to propose a change to the current RabbitMQ connector. >> >> Currently the RMQSource is extracting the body of the message which is a >> byte array and pass it to a an instance of a user implementation of the >> DeserializationSchema class to deserialize the body of the message. It >> also uses the correlation id from the message properties to deduplicate the >> message. >> >> What i want to propose is instead of taking a implementation of a >> DeserializationSchema in the RMQSource constructor, actually have the >> user implement an interface that would have methods both the output for the >> RMQSource and the correlation id used not only from the body of the message >> but also to it's metadata and properties thus giving the connector much >> more power and flexibility. >> >> This of course would mean a breaking API change for the RMQSource since it >> will no longer take a DeserializationSchema but an implementation of a >> predefined interface that has the methods to extract both the output of the >> RMQSource and the to extract the unique message id as well. >> >> The reason behind that is that in my company we were relaying on another >> property the message id for deduplication of the messages and i also needed >> that information further down the pipeline and there was absolutely no way >> of getting it other than modifying the RMQSource. >> >> I already have code written but as the rules dictates i have to run it by >> you guys first before i attempt to create a Jira ticket :) >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> Regards, >> Karim Mansour >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
