Re: [Feature Proposal] Move Apache Apex website to Jekyll

vel navigation looks a bit crowded. I would suggest to reduce the > number of items. Also, we should discuss what should appear there, to fit > the overall ASF theme. > > Thanks > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 4:33 AM Ananth G wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > Per

[Feature Proposal] Move Apache Apex website to Jekyll

Hello All, Per some JIRA tickets and other PR review comments, having a single cohesive website along with blogging capabilities seems to be long due for Apache Apex. I would like to propose moving the Apache Apex website to Jekyll to address the following high level concerns: - Aim to provide

Re: Proposal for UI component in stram

+1 for a UI for Apex. -0 for making it part of the STRAM. - Regarding same port, I was wondering if there will be usage patterns based on firewall rules just based on ports ? This leads us to a situation where we have to trust all users at the same level as the application communication

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Apache Apex PMC Member: Chinmay Kolhatkar

Congratulations Chinmay Regards Ananth > On 25 May 2018, at 4:19 am, amol kekre wrote: > > Congrats Chinmay > > Amol > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Hitesh Kapoor > wrote: > >> Congratulations Chinmay!! >> >> Regards, >> Hitesh Kapoor

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven version

gt; On 16 May 2018 at 20:20, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 for maven version upgrade. > > > > +1 for version 3.5.x as there seems to be some fixes for issues related > to > > this property in version 3.3.9 > > https://issues.apa

Re: [DISCUSS] Maven version

+1 for maven version upgrade. +1 for version 3.5.x as there seems to be some fixes for issues related to this property in version 3.3.9 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5786 ? Regards, Ananth On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Vlad Rozov wrote: > I think it is time

Re: [Feature Proposal] Add metrics dropwizards like gauges, meters, histogram etc to Apex Platform

+1 for the feature. +1 for an abstracted way of metrics library integration. Some additional thoughts on this: - We might have implications of adding a set of dependencies from drop wizard into the engine core ( guava versions etc). - Flink as pointed out by Thomas seems to have taken an

Re: Apex-core build/release steps improvements proposal

+1 to all 3 considering we are trying to centralise the code. 2 should be redone eventually as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-796 ? But the design for this needs to be seen in the broader context of some of the points mentioned below: Regarding 3, I agree that the current

[Proposal] Switch to Java 8

Hello All, I was wondering if we can consider making java 8 as the minimum supported idk version going forward. Since Apex core is moving to the next release cycle, perhaps we consider this ? My assumption is that the next release version for core after the 3.7.0 release is going to be a major

Re: Core release 3.7.0

+1 for the release. Regards, Ananth On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Chinmay Kolhatkar wrote: > +1 for the release. > > - Chinmay. > > On 18 Jan 2018 8:58 pm, "Tushar Gosavi" wrote: > > > +1 for the release > > > > Regards, > > - Tushar. > > > > > >

Re: [Discuss] Design of the python execution operator

queue etc to take care of no delays in the request queue processing itself. Regards, Ananth > On 23 Dec 2017, at 6:50 am, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the comments Thomas and Pramod. > > Apologies for the delayed response on this thread. >

Re: [Discuss] Design of the python execution operator

n. >> You >>> could support both behaviors by use of a property. Furthermore, you may >> not >>> want all threads stuck with stragglers and then you are back to square >> one >>> so you may need to stop processing stragglers beyond a certain thread >> usage

Re: [Discuss] Design of the python execution operator

wait > for your background processing to complete to guarantee all data till the > checkpoint is processed. > > Thanks > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I would l

[Discuss] Design of the python execution operator

Hello All, I would like to submit the design for the Python execution operator before I raise the pull request so that I can refine the implementation based on feedback. Could you please provide feedback on the design if any and I will raise the PR accordingly. - This operator is for the

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0 released

Dear Community, The Apache Apex community is pleased to announce release 3.8.0 of the Apex Malhar library. Apache Apex is an enterprise grade big data-in-motion platform that unifies stream and batch processing. Apex was built for scalability and low-latency processing, high availability and

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Apex Masher 3.8.0 release candidate RC1

The vote is concluded and passes. Thanks everyone for voting and verifying the release. binding +1 (3) Vlad Rozov Thomas Weise Tushar Gosavi non-binding +1 (1) Bhupesh Chawda No other votes. Will complete the release activities in 12 hours from now. Regards, Ananth

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0 release candidate RC1

t; > The release candidate should come with staged javadoc (it will be needed to > update the download page). Please see recent release threads, the vote > example in the release instructions should probably be updated. > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > > On Sun, Nov 5,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0 release candidate RC1

<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/apex/KEYS> Regards, Ananth > On 6 Nov 2017, at 7:25 am, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the note Vlad. I will be able to push the additional .sha512 > extension tonight. > > - Just to be clear, t

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0 release candidate RC1

hank you, > > Vlad > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution > [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums > > On 11/5/17 02:23, Ananth G wrote: >> Dear Community, >> >> Please vote on the following Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0

[VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0 release candidate RC1

Dear Community, Please vote on the following Apache Apex Malhar 3.8.0 release candidate. This is a source release with binary artifacts published to Maven. This release is based on Apex Core 3.6 and resolves 63 issues. List of all issues fixed:

Re: Process to push the documentation into ASF-site before vote for a release

structions that you > executed). > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com > <mailto:ananthg.a...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I am having an issue completing the last step of the release process >> before a

Process to push the documentation into ASF-site before vote for a release

Hello All, I am having an issue completing the last step of the release process before a vote can be called for. My understanding is that the vote for a release ( masher release 3.8.0 ) needs to provide a link for the documentation as well. Hence I am trying to generate the doc links before a

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

Just a note: Since all of the open JIRAs are resolved, I am proceeding to follow the steps in the release guidelines for the 3.8.0 release. I will send a note once the artefacts are ready for a voting process. Regards, Ananth > On 4 Nov 2017, at 5:39 am, Vlad Rozov wrote:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Apache Apex PMC: Tushar Gosavi

Congrats Tushar. Regards, Ananth > On 4 Nov 2017, at 7:55 pm, vikram patil wrote: > > Congratulations Tushar !! > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Ambarish Pande > wrote: >> Congratulations Tushar! >> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 11:48 PM,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Apache Apex Committer: Ananth Gundabattula

Thanks all. Regards, Ananth > On 4 Nov 2017, at 7:54 pm, vikram patil wrote: > > Congratulations Ananth. > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Sanjay Pujare wrote: >> Congratulations, Ananth >> >> Sanjay >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:50

Re: checking dependencies for known vulnerabilities

My vote would be to break the build. This can then force a “whitelisting” configuration in the maven plugin to be created as part of the review process ( along with a new JIRA ticket ). The concern would then be to ensure that the community works towards a resolution of the JIRA. Not breaking

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

fore I spend too much time on this approach and realise later that all of us do not agree with the approach. Regards, Ananth > On 3 Nov 2017, at 5:57 am, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The following changes pass the build and tests in my local environment: > &g

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

1/17 11:50, Pramod Immaneni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Vlad can you add this command to the release instructions and the >>>>>> committer >>>>>> guidelines. If we are unable to address this for this release, we can >>>>>> consi

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

; >>> find . -name DEPENDENCIES -print | xargs grep -n License: | grep -vE >>> "Apache|CDDL|MIT|BSD|ASF|Public Domain|Eclipse Public License|Mozilla >>> Public|Common Public|apache.org" >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Vlad >>

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

t; the case. Tushar, did you have write access to the staging Apache maven >> when you did the release? >> >> What do we do with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2461? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Vlad >> >> >> On 10/25/17

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

the server apache.staging.https in the maven settings file. - I am not able to reach this server ? Is this expected? - The userid and password to be configured are our committer ids ? Regards Ananth > On 26 Oct 2017, at 4:04 am, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

+1 for malhar release. Regards, Ananth > On 26 Oct 2017, at 3:20 am, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: > > +1 for malhar release > > ~ Bhupesh > > > ___ > > Bhupesh Chawda > > E: bhup...@datatorrent.com | Twitter:

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

I would vote for dead PRs to be ideally closed. However, I was wondering if we are being too stringent on the timelines. The reason I raise this is in some of the previous pull requests I was told that the committer would be merging after waiting for a few days. Since the definition of few is

Re: Partitioning information and current operators Id in setup()/activate() method.

properties on the operator > instances that are specific to the partition. An example for this is the > Kafka input operator, where each Apex partition will be setup with the > Kafka topic partition(s) it is responsible for. > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 20

Partitioning information and current operators Id in setup()/activate() method.

Hello All, I was wondering if there is a good way to get the following two values in an operator when the operator is in the activate/setup methods 1. The total number of operator physical instances that are going to be launched 2. The ordinal position of the current operator in the current set

Re: [Design discussion] - Kudu Input operator

Hello Thomas, Thanks for the additional comments. Replies inline marked [Ananth]>>> Regards, Ananth > On 22 Aug 2017, at 2:10 pm, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > --> > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Ananth G

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

+1 for option 2 and second vote for option 1 Have we finalized the library name ? Going from Apex-malhar 3.7 to Apex-malhar-1.0 would be counter intuitive. Also it would be great if we have an agreed process to mark an operator from @evolving to stable version given we are trying to address

Re: [Design discussion] - Kudu Input operator

, couple questions/comments inline -> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com > <mailto:ananthg.a...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> The implementation for Apex Kudu Input Operator is ready for a pull >

[Design discussion] - Kudu Input operator

Hello All, The implementation for Apex Kudu Input Operator is ready for a pull request. Before raising the pull request, I would like to get any inputs regarding the design and incorporate any feedback before raising the pull request in the next couple of days for the following JIRA.

Re: Difference between setup() and activate()

typically at least a few hundreds of milliseconds between >> the time the setup method * is called and the first window, you would want >> to place the code to activate the * stream inside activate instead of setup. >> >> >> My recommendation is to use setup() to i

Re: Difference between setup() and activate()

gt; 1. No, setup() is called only once in the entire lifetime ( >> http://apex.apache.org/docs/apex/operator_development/#setup-call) >> >> 2. Yes. When an operator is "activated" - first time in its life or >> reactivation after a failover - actuvate() is call

Difference between setup() and activate()

Hello All, I was looking at the documentation and could not get a clear distinction of behaviours for setup() and activate() during scenarios when an operator is passivated ( ex: application shutdown, repartition use cases ) and being brought back to life again. Could someone from the

Re: Image processing library

I guess the use cases as documented look really compelling. There might be more comments from code review perspective and below is more from a use case perspective only. I was wondering if you have any latency measurements for the tests you ran. If the image processing calls ( in the process

Re: One Year Anniversary of Apache Apex

Congratulations all.. I was wondering if anyone could point me to docs/examples of what Thomas meant in his blog by stating that "Iterative processing is now supported by the engine to process loop based patterns for ML" ? Does this mean a tuple can flow multiple times through the same operator ?

Checkstyle policies for auto generated code

Hello All, I have run into a dilemma and would like to know what our policy is to deal with the following situation. As part of the implementation for Kudu Input operator (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2472 ) , I will

Re: Ab initio vs Apex

Sorry for the spam .. This mail was for the user mailing list and not dev.. Reposted it in the user mailing list.. Regards Ananth > On 9 Dec. 2016, at 8:14 pm, Ananth G <ananthg.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > I was wondering if anyone has done any tests c

Ab initio vs Apex

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone has done any tests comparing Apex with Ab initio. I guess Abinitio is closed source and there is not much I could gather from the internet Regards Ananth

Re: Apex malhar Guava dependency

Hello Bright, Did the maven approach of excluding guava dependencies when specifying malhar not work ? By this I mean using the following stub when adding malhar dependency in your Pom.xml? com.google.guava guava Regards Ananth > On 2 Dec. 2016, at 1:02

Re: [jira] [Comment Edited] (APEXCORE-576) Apex/Malhar Extensions

If we were to model something along the lines of "Spark packages", I am afraid that the story of Apex being a "rich ecosystem" might be diluted. Today I see Malhar as a strong reason to convince someone that we can interconnect many things as part of the offering. The moment we put a layered