Agree with Bobby, +1 for supporting both versions till EOL and findout how
many users are really using 1.7.x.

~Satish.


On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I am +1 for two modules until EOL.  Jan 2017. - Bobby
>
>     On Saturday, September 17, 2016 4:19 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> kabh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>  According to the link, last version line of ES1 (1.7.x) will be live to
> Jan
> 2017. We need to keep two versions at least EOL of that.
> I wouldn't mind having two modules and also wouldn't mind having duplicate
> codes, but it would be better if we can extract common parts to parent
> module.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 2016년 9월 16일 (금) 오후 10:03, Aaron Niskodé-Dossett <doss...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
> > ES1 is close to end of life in terms of commercial support from Elastic,
> > but not quite there (https://www.elastic.co/support/eol).  Unfortunately
> > the ES1 and ES2 clients won't interoperate with their opposite versions.
> >
> > Given that, I take it you would support having ES1 and ES2 bolts packaged
> > separately?  This would somewhat like how we have storm-kafka and
> > storm-kafka-client for different Kafka versions.
> >
> > Thanks! -Aaron
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:12 AM Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I personally don't use ES as part of my storm work, so I don't
> > necessarily
> > > feel qualified to answer this.  In general though I really do like to
> see
> > > storm come with batteries included.  If ES1 is not end of life, and
> there
> > > is a community of people who want to continue using it/supporting it, I
> > > would say lets continue to do so.  If that is not true, or if ES
> offers a
> > > backwards compatible client that could sway things for me to say lets
> > just
> > > go forward with ES2. - Bobby
> > >
> > >    On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:47 PM, Aaron Niskodé-Dossett <
> > > doss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  Hi all,
> > >
> > > I started a a discussion about this a while ago, but didn't take it to
> a
> > > conclusion (my $realjob, etc., etc.).
> > >
> > > There are multiple PRs open to provide an Elastic Search 2.x bolt to
> the
> > > Storm project.  There are two different approaches:
> > >
> > > 1. Add side-by-side support for 2.x. Example:
> > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1337 (*FULL DISCLOSURE*: this is
> my
> > > own PR). [I also have some functionality enhancements in this PR, but
> > > that's not relevant to this discussion.]
> > >
> > > 2. Upgrade existing bolt. Example,
> > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1396
> > >
> > > The drawback to approach 1 is that it duplicates a lot of code.  The
> > > drawback to approach 2 is that it drops support for ES 1.x.
> > >
> > > ES 2.X has been out for a while and if we are serious about supporting
> > it,
> > > we need to have a way to write to ES 2.X.
> > >
> > > I believe approach number 1 is ideal (again, it's my own PR) and
> possibly
> > > deprecating the existing 1.X bolt.
> > >
> > > I'd love to hear thoughts from others!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to