+100 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Ellison Anne Williams < eawilli...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
