Yes, ES is just an inputformat (like HDFS, Kafka, etc) - we don't need a separate submodule.
Aside from pirk-core, it seems that we would want to break the responder implementations out into submodules. This would leave us with something along the lines of the following (at this point): pirk-core (encryption, core responder incl. standalone, core querier, query, inputformat, serialization, utils) pirk-storm pirk-mapreduce pirk-spark pirk-benchmark pirk-distributed-test Once we add other responder implementations, we can add them as submodules - i.e. for Flink, we would have pirk-flink; for Beam, pirk-beam, etc. We could break 'pirk-core' down further... On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Suneel Marthi <suneel.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's an example from the Flink project for how they go about new features > or system breaking API changes, we could start a similar process. The Flink > guys call these FLIP (Flink Improvement Proposal) and Kafka community > similarly has something called KLIP. > > We could start a PLIP (??? :-) ) > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=65870673 > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Suneel Marthi <suneel.mar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
