A shared Google doc would be more convenient than a bunch of Jiras. Its easier to comment and add notes that way.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Darin Johnson <dbjohnson1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Suneel, I'll try to put a couple jiras on it tonight with my thoughts. > Based off my pirk-63 I was able to pull spark and storm out with no > issues. I was planning to pull them out, then tackling elastic search, > then hadoop as it's a little entrenched. This should keep most PRs to > manageable chunks. I think once that's done addressing the configs will > make more sense. > > I'm open to suggestions. But the hope would be: > Pirk-parent > Pirk-core > Pirk-hadoop > Pirk-storm > Pirk-parent > > Pirk-es is a little weird as it's really just an inputformat, seems like > there's a more general solution here than creating submodules for every > inputformat. > > Darin > > On Sep 19, 2016 1:00 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <smar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Refactor is definitely a first priority. Is there a design/proposal > draft > > that we could comment on about how to go about refactoring the code. I > > have been trying to keep up with the emails but definitely would have > > missed some. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Ellison Anne Williams < > > eawilli...@apache.org <eawilli...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > > 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 <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> > > > 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 < > t.p.elli...@gmail.com> > > > > 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 < > t.p.elli...@gmail.com> > > > > >> 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 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
