I see a case for both. Flux gives people enough rope to hang themselves if they don't know what they are doing. Restricting choices seem safer. But consistency is also good. Plus Flux is supported by the Storm team so it's less code we would have to support
26.09.2016, 09:24, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>: > This would make the tuning process much more consistent across topologies, > so I'm a fan of that approach. > > Jon > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:22 PM Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We moved the parser topologies away from Flux early on, mostly because the >> way it was working originally would require separate flux files per >> topology. I think that we are, with the current architecture, would be >> able to use one flux file for all of the topology (different params, >> obviously). Flux is quite configurable and if we could use one flux file >> and just have separate configs per parser topology, then I think we might >> get the best of both worlds. >> >> What do you guys think? > -- > > Jon ------------------- Thank you, James Sirota PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) jsirota AT apache DOT org
