Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

+1 from me, too. On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 at 5:05 AM P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Yes, that's the plan. All examples would be source only with poms that > allow the user to compile. > > -Taylor > > > On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Bobby Evans > wrote: > >

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Yes, that's the plan. All examples would be source only with poms that allow the user to compile. -Taylor > On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Bobby Evans wrote: > > +1 for that, although I think it is the examples that ends up being the heavy > part. The examples

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

+1 for that, although I think it is the examples that ends up being the heavy part.  The examples are all uber jars and pull in lots of dependencies.  Some of them multiple times over.  Do we want the examples to only be a source release so before running an example they have to build it? -

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

I’m fine with dropping connectors from the binary distribution in favor having users use Maven, gradle, etc. handle user dependencies. Building topology jars manually (vs. letting Maven do the heavy lifting) is painful and something to be avoided, specifically for new users. So the “binary

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Regarding 3, if we don't make uber jar for connectors, adding jar file in binary dist. to the classpath will not work, which means that including connector jar libraries in binary dist. is no effect. (Someone proposed shading storm-redis because of dependencies... We can cover it by various way

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

I’d like to propose the following to address the binary distribution size: 1. Finish moving connector examples to the “examples” directory. 2. Make all examples source-only in the binary distribution. This will mean users will have to build the examples themselves, but that’s typically what one

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Agree with Jungtaek, STORM-2390 should not block the 1.1.0 release. - Xin 2017-03-07 9:16 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim : > Sorry Roshan but I don't get it. > We're already having separate modules for each of the connectors, and even > examples. We also don't have any common modules

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Sorry Roshan but I don't get it. We're already having separate modules for each of the connectors, and even examples. We also don't have any common modules for external connectors, so those are completely individual. As I reported earlier, binary dist. will go up more than 500 MB when we address

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

As having a separate module for each of the connectors will cause a lot of bloat … may be good to club them into one. -roshan On 3/2/17, 10:39 AM, "Sree V" wrote: +1separate main binaries, connectors and samples/examples. Thanking you. With

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

+1separate main binaries, connectors and samples/examples.   Thanking you. With Regards Sree On Thursday, March 2, 2017 8:02 AM, Satish Duggana wrote: Agree that such huge binaries may not be acceptable. We should really think about the options proposed

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Agree that such huge binaries may not be acceptable. We should really think about the options proposed earlier like excluding some of the external connectors from binary and update the documentation respectively. Thanks, Satish. On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Jungtaek Lim

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Adding my observation to my last mail: I just give STORM-2249 a try (against master branch) and compare before vs after. It adds more than 300 MB, and the final archive is more than 550 MB. I guess it would be similar for 1.x branch. Before -- -rw-r--r-- 1 jlim staff 3.3K 3 2 19:41

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

I guess it might be good time to think why we add all connectors to the binary distribution. Spark and Flink don't include them to binary dist. They even moved some or most of connectors out of repo, have been maintaining them in Apache Bahir. (Personally this is something I'm in favor of. We

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Looks like the formatting on my prev email got dropped. But observation is that storm-kafka-monitor and storm-druid are the biggest new contributors. -roshan On 3/1/17, 5:23 PM, "Roshan Naik" wrote: Once all of the shaded examples are included the size will go up

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Once all of the shaded examples are included the size will go up further. But currently as they are not part of the tar.gz … something else is the culprit for the bloat. Below is a comparative listing of 1.0.3 vs 1.1.0 binary releases .. of files that are larger than 4MB. @Jungtaek

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

About STORM-2249, since examples are shading their dependencies, binary dist will grow much bigger. I've left some comments regarding that. Btw, I have another view of this. Showing example codes is more important than just let users execute some topologies. That's what example modules are for. We

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Roshan, does this PR and JIRA address the missing jars problem that you mentioned. I had created it in December 2016, but there is an ongoing discussion if we should indeed put the jars in the examples

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Yeah, I don’t think the file size is a killer/blocker. It’s largely due to shaded examples, etc. But it’s something to keep an eye on. Our binary releases shouldn’t have to be that big. -Taylor > On Mar 1, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Roshan Naik wrote: > > Have filed Jiras so

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Have filed Jiras so for the 3 issues mentioned. Not sure if we need a JIRA for the file size getting bloated by that much. Somebody better familiar with the matter may want to take about that? -roshan On 3/1/17, 8:13 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: Thanks for bringing

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Thanks for bringing these up Roshan. Feel free to file JIRA tickets for these issues and assign the “Release Apache Storm 1.1.0” epic so they can be tracked for this release. -Taylor > On Mar 1, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Roshan Naik wrote: > > Found these additional issues: >

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Found these additional issues: 1- BUG: Even if topology.eventlogger.executors=0, the event_logger bolt is instantiated … previously observed to cause ~10% degradation in perf even with logging disabled. 2- Missing Jars: The storm-*-examples jars are missing in the binary distro (other than

[CANCELED] [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC2)

Canceling to include fix for JDK7 compatibility issue. -Taylor > On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:40 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 1.1.0 (rc2) > > Full list of changes in this release: > >