Thanks Jungtaek for the analysis. We've been super busy the past week, but I will perform my own analysis this week.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:14 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for the analysis Jungtaek. I particularly appreciate your > admitted bias as a big contributor to storm-SQL. > > It will take time for us to sort out how the merge will happen. Similar to > what we are discussing with Kafka and ES, we could support two versions of > SQL, and eventually deprecate the one one that has the least traction. > > I'd rather not do that if possible. I'd rather see the community rally > around a (TBD) approach to a single SQL interface. SQE has an advantage > that it used in production, but being newly donated/open sourced, it does > not have much of a user community. Storm-SQL has the same community issue, > likely because it's never been announced. And it's never been announced > because it hasn't been ready (missing MVP features). > > It would be good to see some sort of analysis from the SQE devs who are > more intimately acquainted with the SQE codebase. > > -Taylor > > > > On Sep 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi dev, > > > > While code contribution of SQE is in progress, I would like to continue > > discussion how to merge SQE and Storm SQL. > > > > I did an analysis of merging SQE and Storm SQL in both side, integrating > > SQE to Storm SQL and vice versa. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STORM/ > Technical+analysis+of+merging+SQE+and+Storm+SQL > > > > As I commented to that page, since I'm working on Storm SQL for some > weeks > > I can be (heavily) biased. So I'd really appreciated if someone can do > > another analysis. > > > > Please feel free to share your thought about this analysis, or another > > proposal if you have any, or other things about the merging. > > > > Thanks, > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > -- Morrigan Jones Principal Engineer *JW*PLAYER | Your Way to Play morri...@jwplayer.com | jwplayer.com
