+1 from my side as well.
I would assume that most Bolts that are supported by our current wrappers
can be easily converted into respective Flink functions.
Fabian
Am Do., 10. Jan. 2019 um 10:35 Uhr schrieb Kostas Kloudas <
k.klou...@da-platform.com>:
> +1 to drop as well.
>
> On Thu, Jan 10,
+1 to drop as well.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ufuk Celebi wrote:
> +1 to drop.
>
> I totally agree with your reasoning. I like that we tried to keep it,
> but I don't think the maintenance overhead would be justified.
>
> – Ufuk
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:09 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
+1 to drop.
I totally agree with your reasoning. I like that we tried to keep it,
but I don't think the maintenance overhead would be justified.
– Ufuk
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:09 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
> With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10571, we will remove the
> Storm
With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10571, we will remove the
Storm topologies from Flink and keep the wrappers for the moment.
However, looking at the FlinkTopologyContext [1], it becomes quite obvious
that Flink's compatibility with Storm is really limited. Almost all of the
Yes, let's do it this way.
The wrapper classes are probably not too complex and can be easily tested.
We have the same for the Hadoop interfaces, although I think only the
Input- and OutputFormatWrappers are actually used.
Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 09:46 Uhr schrieb Chesnay Schepler <
That sounds very good to me.
On 08.10.2018 11:36, Till Rohrmann wrote:
Good point. The initial idea of this thread was to remove the storm
compatibility layer completely.
During the discussion I realized that it might be useful for our users
to not completely remove it in one go. Instead for
Good point. The initial idea of this thread was to remove the storm
compatibility layer completely.
During the discussion I realized that it might be useful for our users to
not completely remove it in one go. Instead for those who still want to use
some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be
I don't believe that to be the consensus. For starters it is
contradictory; we can't /drop /flink-storm yet still /keep //some parts/.
From my understanding we drop flink-storm completely, and put a note in
the docs that the bolt/spout wrappers of previous versions will continue
to work.
On
Thanks for opening the issue Chesnay. I think the overall consensus is to
drop flink-storm and only keep the Bolt and Spout wrappers. Thanks for your
feedback!
Cheers,
Till
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:37 AM Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10509
I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10509 for
removing flink-storm.
On 28.09.2018 15:22, Till Rohrmann wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm compatibility
layer flink-strom.
While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed
Best,
>>>> tison.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 远远 于2018年9月29日周六 下午2:16写道：
>>>>
>>>>> +1， it‘s time to drop it
>>>>>
>>>>> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 于2018年9月29日周六
>>>>> 下午1:53写道：
>>>>&g
t; >> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 于2018年9月29日周六
> > >> 下午1:53写道：
> > >>
> > >>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> 发件人：
; >
> >> +1， it‘s time to drop it
> >>
> >> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 于2018年9月29日周六
> >> 下午1:53写道：
> >>
> >>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
> >>>
> >>> -----------
29日周六
>> 下午1:53写道：
>>
>>> Very agree with to drop it. +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> 发件人：Jeff Carter
>>> 发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
>>> 收件人：dev
>>> 抄 送：chesnay ; Till Rohrmann ;
>>> user
>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping fli
e with to drop it. +1
>>
>> --
>> 发件人：Jeff Carter
>> 发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
>> 收件人：dev
>> 抄 送：chesnay ; Till Rohrmann ;
>> user
>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
>&g
nn ;
> user
> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
>
> +1 to drop it.
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > +1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it.
> >
> > Best, Hequn
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 a
Very agree with to drop it. +1
--
发件人：Jeff Carter
发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18
收件人：dev
抄 送：chesnay ; Till Rohrmann ; user
主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?
+1 to drop it.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng wrote
Hi,
+1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it.
Best, Hequn
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM Chesnay Schepler
wrote:
> I'm very much in favor of dropping it.
>
> Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO we've
> reached the point where we should cull some of the
Hi,
+1, I agree.
In addition, some users ask questions about the integration of Storm
compatibility mode with the newer Flink version on the mailing list.
It seems that they are not aware that some of Flink's new features are no
longer available in Storm compatibility mode.
This can be confusing
I'm very much in favor of dropping it.
Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO we've
reached the point where we should cull some of the more obscure ones.
flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers too
little value.
Note that the bolt/spout
Hi everyone,
I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm compatibility
layer flink-strom.
While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed that some parts of
flink-storm rely on the legacy Flink client. In fact, at the moment
flink-storm does not work together with Flink's
21 matches
Mail list logo
