Hi S G, I'd be happy if you could elaborate your opinion. Did you found bad usages from master branch of Storm code?
Regarding comfortable of lambda, IMHO, I don't think many users are unfamiliar with lambda, since they should have been used it with various languages. We might not be comfortable with Java 8 lambda (since transition to Java 8 is going slowly), but it's just a matter of familiarizing. Are there kind of best practices for Java 8 lambda? We can refer these to construct some guides / restrictions for Storm project. Thanks, Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2017년 1월 3일 (화) 오후 12:26, S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > I have found several bad usages of Java 8 lambdas and many developers are > not comfortable using them. > > So we should use them only if it really makes the code beautiful and easier > to understand. > > My 2c, > Thanks > SG > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > The streams API implementation has limited usage of 1.8 features and can > > be easily ported to 1.7 if required. The examples are written in 1.8, the > > thought being users would stick to the Java 8 style usage (lambdas) from > > the beginning. If there is consensus we could also consider moving the > 1.x > > branch to JDK 8. > > > > Anyways would like interested folks to start reviewing the changes so > that > > we can take it forward. > > > > Thanks, > > Arun > > > > > > On 12/23/16, 10:09 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >FYI, I've realized that internal of Stream API (pull request) relies on > > JDK > > >8 (what I've found is 'static method in interface' and maybe more) so > for > > >now Stream API is expected to be included for at least Storm 2.0.0 > unless > > >the PR is modified to fit to JDK 7. > > > > > >- Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > >2016년 12월 21일 (수) 오전 9:40, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > > > > > >> Thanks Manu and Taylor for giving your opinions. > > >> > > >> - Storm SQL improvement > > >> > > >> There're some huge PRs available but there're all about improvement > > which > > >> shouldn't be blocker for releasing 1.1.0. (I'd like to also include > > them to > > >> 1.1.0 but not sure it can be happen really soon.) > > >> I'll send a request for reviewing about pending Storm SQL PRs. > > >> > > >> Only one issue (STORM-2200) is linked to release 1.1.0 epic which is > > >> blocker for me. > > >> > > >> - Java port > > >> > > >> I also had some developers saying 'If core of Storm were written by > > Java, > > >> I could experiment and even contribute on something'. I was one of > them, > > >> and to be honest, I'm still a beginner of Clojure. Moving to Java 8 > also > > >> gives great functionalities for us, so Java port is what I think the > > most > > >> important thing among the huge works now in progress. Ideally, and > > >> hopefully, I'd like to see us focus on this and make this happen at > the > > >> very early next year. > > >> (Yes we should do some manual tests and maybe some refactoring too.) > > >> > > >> - Metrics V2 > > >> > > >> I'm not sure when we plan to release Storm 1.2.0, but given that > > there're > > >> only two things left (logviewer / ui) for completing port work (except > > >> tests) I guess Storm 2.0.0 might be happen earlier. > > >> Taylor, when do you expect metrics V2 will be available for reviewing? > > >> > > >> - Stream API > > >> > > >> With labeling as experiment or annotating with evolving, we could > > include > > >> the first version to next minor excluding 1.1.0. (We could even > include > > >> this to 1.1.0 if we start reviewing this very soon.) > > >> > > >> I'd like to hear others' opinions as well. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > >> > > >> 2016년 12월 21일 (수) 오전 7:33, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > > >> > > >> Hi Jungtaek, > > >> > > >> > - Beam runner > > >> > > >> There’s not been much activity around this, and I haven’t had much > time > > to > > >> work on it recently, but there’s a decent foundation to build upon. So > > it > > >> would be fairly easy for others to start contributing to that effort. > > >> There’s also interest from the Beam community in that runner, so one > > >> possibility is to move that effort to the Apache Beam project. > > >> > > >> This is very preliminary work, so I don’t have a good handle on what > the > > >> target release would be. > > >> > > >> > - Metrics renewal > > >> > > >> > > >> This is what I’ve been referring to as “metrics_v2”. This is > progressing > > >> fairly well with support for multiple reporters (e.g. Graphite, > Ganglia, > > >> console, etc.), worker metrics, disruptor metrics, etc. > > >> > > >> I would like to target this work for 1.2.0. > > >> > > >> > - Java port > > >> > > >> This effort seems to have picked up (for example Bobby’s conversion of > > >> Nimbus, etc.) and is progressing steadily. It’s taken a lot longer > than > > >> initially thought, but a lot of that can be attributed to the ebb and > > flow > > >> of people’s availability to do the work. > > >> > > >> > - Storm SQL improvement (Streaming SQL in future) > > >> > > >> You’ve been spearheading most of the work here, so I’d delegate to you > > for > > >> your opinion on where it stands. If you need additional reviews, just > > ask > > >> on list or via GitHub (e.g. “[REVIEW REQUEST]” in the subject line > might > > >> help get attention). > > >> > > >> My thinking has been that this could be included in the 1.1.0 release. > > Is > > >> there a set of JIRA issues you would like to include in order to make > > that > > >> happen? > > >> > > >> > - Stream API > > >> > > >> This seems to have stalled a bit, though there seems to be a lot of > > >> interest around it. I think we all would agree that when introducing a > > new > > >> API for building topologies, it’s important that we get right from the > > >> start and have strong buy-in from the development community. I would > > >> encourage anyone interested in the Streams API to review the proposal > > and > > >> initial code. > > >> > > >> I think it is close, but I’m not sure what release to target. Possibly > > the > > >> 2.0 release? > > >> > > >> Re: 1.1.0 Release > > >> > > >> STORM-2176 is a fairly big concern of mine since the feature it > involves > > >> was introduced in 1.0.0 and did not work then nor in any subsequent or > > >> future releases (may not be a problem in 2.0). Unfortunately, as > you’ve > > >> seen, finding the root cause is elusive. That issue could definitely > use > > >> more eyes. > > >> > > >> -Taylor > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Dec 20, 2016, at 2:19 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi devs, > > >> > > > >> > I'm seeing lots of huge works in parallel, and we individual are > busy > > >> > regarding each work so common works (review, release, documentation, > > >> etc.) > > >> > have been not made in progress for several months. > > >> > > > >> > - Beam runner > > >> > - Metrics renewal > > >> > - Java port > > >> > - Storm SQL improvement (Streaming SQL in future) > > >> > - Stream API > > >> > > > >> > IMHO, it would be better to set target versions for them, and set a > > >> roadmap > > >> > (per version), and prioritize based on roadmap. > > >> > > > >> > Stream API (very first version), and Storm SQL improvement are > waiting > > >> for > > >> > review, and personally I would like to publish them soon. > > >> > > > >> > If we're OK to have 2.0.0 without adding much features, I'm in favor > > of > > >> > concentrating Java port work (postponing other things except > releasing > > >> 1.x > > >> > version line) and moving to Apache Storm 2.0.0 really soon. > > >> > (I'm even OK we decide to postpone some clojure files to be > addressed > > >> after > > >> > 2.0.0.) > > >> > Actually we're suffering other annoying issue: JDK 7 (1.x) vs 8 > (2.x) > > >> which > > >> > is other reason to move to 2.x quickly. > > >> > > > >> > I'd be really happy if we have metrics renewal and beam runner, but > > I'm > > >> not > > >> > sure when they're available to be published. Do we have any updates > > here? > > >> > > > >> > What do you think? It might be ideal, and/or broader discussion but > we > > >> > haven't discussed our plan / vision for a long time so better to > give > > it > > >> a > > >> > try. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
