I am in favor of breaking out pirk-core as specified so that our initial
submodule structure would be as follows:

pirk-core (encryption,query, inputformat, serialization, utils)

pirk-responder (core responder incl. standalone)

pirk-querier

pirk-storm

pirk-mapreduce

pirk-spark

pirk-benchmark

pirk-distributed-test


One thing to note is that under this breakdown, pirk-core would not include
the Elasticsearch dependency (es-hadoop). The only submodules that would
have the es-hadoop dependency (those which need it) currently are
pirk-mapreduce, pirk-spark, and pirk-distributed-test.


I believe that we agreed (somewhere :)) in this thread to go ahead and
remove the platform 'backwards compatibility' for PIRK-63. Please holler if
this is not correct.




On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Darin Johnson <dbjohnson1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Suneel, a google doc as promised, only a day late (sorry - sick kid).
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K8E0TridC1hBfqDwWCqdZ8Dj_5_
> mMrRQyynQ-Q6MFbI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I was planning on working on this, but I'm going to take a day or two to
> let others comment.
>
> Darin
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:07 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
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to