Thanks for the explanation Morrigan! Would you be willing to provide a pull request or patch so the community can review?
It sounds like at least some of the changes you mention could be useful to the broader community (beyond the SQL effort). Thanks again, -Taylor > On Sep 26, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Morrigan Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > storm-kafka - This is needed because storm-kafka does not provide a scheme > class that gives you the key, value (payload), partition, and offset. > MessageMetadataScheme.java comes comes closest, but is missing the key. > This was a pretty simple change on my part. > > storm-redis - This is needed for proper support of Redis hashes. The > existing storm-redis uses a static string (additionalKey in > the RedisDataTypeDescription class) for the field name in hash types. I > updated it to use a configurable KeyFactory for both the hash name and the > field name. We also added some limited support for set types. This is > admittedly the messiest between the two jars since we only cared about the > trident states and would require a lot more changes to get storm-redis more > "feature complete" overall. > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sounds good. I’ll find out if it builds against 2.x. If so I’ll go that >> direction. Otherwise I’ll come back with my findings and we can discuss it >> further. >> >> I notice there are jars in the git repo that we obviously can’t import. >> They look like they might be custom JWPlayer builds of storm-kafka and >> storm-redis. >> >> Morrigan — Do you know if there is any differences there that required >> custom builds of those components? >> >> -Taylor >> >>>> On Sep 26, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Does it compile against 2.X? If so I would prefer to have it go there, >> and then possibly 1.x if people what it there too. - Bobby >>> >>>> On Monday, September 26, 2016 12:47 PM, P. Taylor Goetz < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The IP Clearance vote has passed and we are now able to import the SQE >> code. >>> >>> The question now is to where do we want to import the code? >>> >>> My inclination is to import it to “external” in the 1.x branch. It can >> be ported to other branches as necessary/if desired. An alternative would >> be to treat it as a feature branch, but I’d rather take the former approach. >>> >>> Thought/opinions? >>> >>> -Taylor >>> >>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:39 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> My apologies. I meant to cc dev@, but didn't. Will forward in a bit... >>>> >>>> The vote (lazy consensus) is underway on general@incubator, and will >> close in less than 72 hours. After that the code can be merged. >>>> >>>> -Taylor >>>> >>>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] | jwplayer.com
