Agree - let's leave the config/CLI the way it is for now and tackle that as a subsequent design discussion and PR.
Also, I think that we should leave the ResponderDriver and the ResponderProps alone for this PR and push to a subsequent PR (once we decide if and how we would like to delegate each). I vote to remove the 'platform' option and the backwards compatibility in this PR and proceed with having a ResponderLauncher interface and forcing its implementation by the ResponderDriver. And, I am not so concerned with having one fat jar vs. multiple jars right now - to me, at this point, it's a 'nice to have' and not a 'must have' for Pirk functionality. We do need to break out Pirk into more clearly defined submodules (which is in progress) - via this re-factor, I think that we will gain some ability to generate multiple jars which is nice. On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19/09/16 15:46, Darin Johnson wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > Thanks for looking at the PR, I apologize if it offended anyone's eyes:). > > > > I'm glad it generated some discussion about the configuration. I didn't > > really like where things were heading with the config. However, didn't > > want to create to much scope creep. > > > > I think any hierarchical config (TypeSafe or yaml) would make things much > > more maintainable, the plugin could simply grab the appropriate part of > the > > config and handle accordingly. I'd also cut down the number of command > > line options to only those that change between runs often (like > > input/output) > > > >> One option is to make Pirk pluggable, so that a Pirk installation could > >> use one or more of these in an extensible fashion by adding JAR files. > >> That would still require selecting one by command-line argument. > > > > An argument for this approach is for lambda architecture approaches (say > > spark/spark-streaming) were the contents of the jars would be so similar > it > > seems like to much trouble to create separate jars. > > > > Happy to continue working on this given some direction on where you'd > like > > it to go. Also, it's a bit of a blocker to refactoring the build into > > submodules. > > FWIW my 2c is to not try and fix all the problems in one go, and rather > take a compromise on the configurations while you tease apart the > submodules in to separate source code trees, poms, etc; then come back > and fix the runtime configs. > > Once the submodules are in place it will open up more work for release > engineering and tinkering that can be done in parallel with the config > polishing. > > Just a thought. > Tim > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On 19/09/16 13:40, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > >>> It seems that it's the same idea as the ResponderLauncher with the > >> service > >>> component added to maintain something akin to the 'platform'. I would > >>> prefer that we just did away with the platform notion altogether and > make > >>> the ResponderDriver 'dumb'. We get around needing a platform-aware > >> service > >>> by requiring the ResponderLauncher implementation to be passed as a CLI > >> to > >>> the ResponderDriver. > >> > >> Let me check I understand what you are saying here. > >> > >> At the moment, there is a monolithic Pirk that hard codes how to respond > >> using lots of different backends (mapreduce, spark, sparkstreaming, > >> storm , standalone), and that is selected by command-line argument. > >> > >> One option is to make Pirk pluggable, so that a Pirk installation could > >> use one or more of these in an extensible fashion by adding JAR files. > >> That would still require selecting one by command-line argument. > >> > >> A second option is to simply pass in the required backend JAR to select > >> the particular implementation you choose, as a specific Pirk > >> installation doesn't need to use multiple backends simultaneously. > >> > >> ...and you are leaning towards the second option. Do I have that > correct? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tim > >> > >>> Am I missing something? Is there a good reason to provide a service by > >>> which platforms are registered? I'm open... > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> How about an approach like this? > >>>> https://github.com/tellison/incubator-pirk/tree/pirk-63 > >>>> > >>>> The "on-ramp" is the driver [1], which calls upon the service to find > a > >>>> plug-in [2] that claims to implement the required platform responder, > >>>> e.g. [3]. > >>>> > >>>> The list of plug-ins is given in the provider's JAR file, so the ones > we > >>>> provide in Pirk are listed together [4], but if you split these into > >>>> modules, or somebody brings their own JAR alongside, these would be > >>>> listed in each JAR's services/ directory. > >>>> > >>>> [1] > >>>> https://github.com/tellison/incubator-pirk/blob/pirk-63/ > >>>> src/main/java/org/apache/pirk/responder/wideskies/ > ResponderDriver.java > >>>> [2] > >>>> https://github.com/tellison/incubator-pirk/blob/pirk-63/ > >>>> src/main/java/org/apache/pirk/responder/spi/ResponderPlugin.java > >>>> [3] > >>>> https://github.com/tellison/incubator-pirk/blob/pirk-63/ > >>>> src/main/java/org/apache/pirk/responder/wideskies/storm/ > >>>> StormResponder.java > >>>> [4] > >>>> https://github.com/tellison/incubator-pirk/blob/pirk-63/ > >>>> src/main/services/org.apache.responder.spi.Responder > >>>> > >>>> I'm not even going to dignify this with a WIP PR, it is far from > ready, > >>>> so proceed with caution. There is hopefully enough there to show the > >>>> approach, and if it is worth continuing I'm happy to do so. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Tim > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
