Personally, I was seeing METRON-477 as one of those "useful bits of functionality" that would be orchestrated by Stellar 2.0. But I can also see your viewpoint on how it could also be part of the orchestration. Very interesting.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:09 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > One of those users gives this a +1. This also appears related to > METRON-477 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-477>, except that 477 is > more > focused on data flow once it hits disk and this is during ingest/stream > processing. At the end of the day, not that different IMO. Would love to > see it all managed via Stellar/zookeeper. > > Jon > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM Nick Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > In reality, the current "engine" is Storm + Kafka + HBase. Each of these > could be independently swapped out once Metron is just a DSL with multiple > underlying engines. > > Ok, I'll stop. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Nick Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chasing this bad idea down even further leads me to something even > > crazier. > > > > Stellar 1.0 can only operate within a single topology and in most cases > > only on a single message. Stellar 2.0 could be the mechanism that allows > > users to define their own data flows and what "useful bits of Metron > > functionality" get plugged-in. > > > > Once, you have a DSL that allows users to define what they want Metron to > > do, then the underlying implementation mechanism (which is currently > Storm) > > can also be swapped-out. If we have an even faster Storm implementation, > > then we swap in the Storm NG engine. Maybe we want Metron to also run in > > Flink, then we just swap-in a Flink engine. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Nick Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I totally "bird dogged the previous thread" as Casey likes to call it. > :) > >> I am extracting this thought into a separate thread before I start > >> throwing out even more, crazier ideas. > >> > >> In general, Metron is very opinionated about data flows right now. We > >>> have Parser topologies that feed an Enrichment topology, which then > feeds > >>> an Indexing topology. We have useful bits of functionality (think > Stellar > >>> transforms, Geo enrichment, etc) that are closely coupled with these > >>> topologies (aka data flows). > >>> > >> > >> > >>> When a user wants to parse heterogenous data from a single topic, > that's > >>> not easy. When a user wants enriched output to land in unique topics > by > >>> sensor type, well, that's also not easy. When a user wanted to skip > >>> enrichment of data sources, we actually re-architected the data flow to > add > >>> the Indexing topology. > >>> > >> > >> > >>> In an ideal world, a user should be responsible for defining the data > >>> flow, not Metron. Metron should provide the "useful bits of > functionality" > >>> that a user can "plugin" wherever they like. Metron itself should not > care > >>> how the data is moving or what step in the process it is at. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Nick Allen <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Nick Allen <[email protected]> > > > > > > -- > Nick Allen <[email protected]> > > -- > > Jon > -- Nick Allen <[email protected]>
