Thanks everyone. Could one or more committers +1 the PR that would support both versions?
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1337 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:52 AM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
