Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Fabian Hueske]

+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, 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:
>> >
>> > 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
>> > context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these
>> > wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having
>> > them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using
>> > them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our
>> > maintenance burden in the future. What do you think?
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Till
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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 <
>> > > ches...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > >> 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 those who still
>> > >> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to
>> > >> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more
>> > >> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and
>> then
>> > >> > the wrappers. What do you think?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Cheers,
>> > >> > Till
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler <
>> ches...@apache.org
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>> > >> >> 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
>> > >> >> mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> 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
>> > >> >> 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 new
>> > >> distributed
>> > >> >> > architecture.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
>> > >> >> Flink's Storm
>> > >> >> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth
>> porting it.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I see two options how to proceed:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
>> > >> >> new architecture
>> > >> >> > 2) Drop flink-storm
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
>> > >> >> bec

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Kostas Kloudas]

+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:
> >
> > 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
> > context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these
> > wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having
> > them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using
> > them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our
> > maintenance burden in the future. What do you think?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske  wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <
> > > ches...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> 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 those who still
> > >> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to
> > >> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more
> > >> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and
> then
> > >> > the wrappers. What do you think?
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers,
> > >> > Till
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> ches...@apache.org
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > 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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >> mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >> 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 new
> > >> distributed
> > >> >> > architecture.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
> > >> >> Flink's Storm
> > >> >> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth
> porting it.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I see two options how to proceed:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
> > >> >> new architecture
> > >> >> > 2) Drop flink-storm
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
> > >> >> because once we
> > >> >> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work
> > >> >> with all newer
> > >> >> > Flink versions.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and
> in
> > >> >> particular if
> > >> >> > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the
> future.
> > >> >>   

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Ufuk Celebi]

+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 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
> context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these
> wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having
> them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using
> them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our
> maintenance burden in the future. What do you think?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske  wrote:
>
> > 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 <
> > ches...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> 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 those who still
> >> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to
> >> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more
> >> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and then
> >> > the wrappers. What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Till
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler  >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >> >> 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
> >> >> mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >> 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 new
> >> distributed
> >> >> > architecture.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
> >> >> Flink's Storm
> >> >> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see two options how to proceed:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
> >> >> new architecture
> >> >> > 2) Drop flink-storm
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
> >> >> because once we
> >> >> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work
> >> >> with all newer
> >> >> > Flink versions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
> >> >> particular if
> >> >> > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> > Till
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Till Rohrmann]

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
context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these
wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having
them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using
them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our
maintenance burden in the future. What do you think?

[1]
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java

Cheers,
Till

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske  wrote:

> 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 <
> ches...@apache.org>:
>
>> 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 those who still
>> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to
>> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more
>> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and then
>> > the wrappers. What do you think?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Till
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >> mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> 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 new
>> distributed
>> >> > architecture.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
>> >> Flink's Storm
>> >> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I see two options how to proceed:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
>> >> new architecture
>> >> > 2) Drop flink-storm
>> >> >
>> >> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
>> >> because once we
>> >> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work
>> >> with all newer
>> >> > Flink versions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
>> >> particular if
>> >> > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Till
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Fabian Hueske]

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 <
ches...@apache.org>:

> 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 those who still
> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to
> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more
> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and then
> > the wrappers. What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler  > > wrote:
> >
> > 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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >> 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
> >> mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> 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 new
> distributed
> >> > architecture.
> >> >
> >> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
> >> Flink's Storm
> >> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >> >
> >> > I see two options how to proceed:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
> >> new architecture
> >> > 2) Drop flink-storm
> >> >
> >> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
> >> because once we
> >> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work
> >> with all newer
> >> > Flink versions.
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
> >> particular if
> >> > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Till
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[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 those who still 
want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to 
keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more 
graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and then 
the wrappers. What do you think?


Cheers,
Till

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler > wrote:


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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:

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
mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:

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
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 new distributed
> architecture.
>
> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using
Flink's Storm
> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>
> I see two options how to proceed:
>
> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's
new architecture
> 2) Drop flink-storm
>
> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1],
because once we
> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work
with all newer
> Flink versions.
>
> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
particular if
> you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Till Rohrmann]

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 nice to keep the wrappers.
At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more graceful way by first
removing the Topology and client parts and then the wrappers. What do you
think?

Cheers,
Till

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler  wrote:

> 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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
> 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 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 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 new distributed
>> > architecture.
>> >
>> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
>> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>> >
>> > I see two options how to proceed:
>> >
>> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
>> architecture
>> > 2) Drop flink-storm
>> >
>> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
>> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
>> > Flink versions.
>> >
>> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
>> if
>> > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Till
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Chesnay Schepler]

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 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote:
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 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 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 new distributed
> architecture.
>
> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>
> I see two options how to proceed:
>
> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
architecture
> 2) Drop flink-storm
>
> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because
once we
> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
newer
> Flink versions.
>
> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
particular if
> you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Till Rohrmann]

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 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 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 new distributed
> > architecture.
> >
> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >
> > I see two options how to proceed:
> >
> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new architecture
> > 2) Drop flink-storm
> >
> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
> > Flink versions.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular if
> > you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Chesnay Schepler]

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 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 new distributed
architecture.

I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.

I see two options how to proceed:

1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new architecture
2) Drop flink-storm

I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
Flink versions.

Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular if
you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.

[1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink

Cheers,
Till

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Aljoscha Krettek]

+1 for dropping it

> On 1. Oct 2018, at 10:55, Fabian Hueske  wrote:
> 
> +1 to drop it.
> 
> Thanks, Fabian
> 
> Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Niels Basjes :
> 
>> I would drop it.
>> 
>> Niels Basjes
>> 
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
>>> stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kostas
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1 to drop it.
>>>> 
>>>> It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
>>>> module sparse often means that there is low interest.
>>>> 
>>>> 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：
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 <
>> trohrm...@apache.org
>>>> ;
>>>>>> 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 <
>> ches...@apache.org
>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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 more obscure
>> ones.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint,
>> offers
>>> too
>>>>>>>> little value.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
>>> compatible,
>>>>>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration
>> to
>>>>>>>> Flink APIs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
>>> if we
>>>>>>>> drop it
>>>>>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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 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 new
>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's
>> Storm
>>>>>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
>>>>>>> architecture
>>>>>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because
>> once
>>> we
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
>>> newer
>>>>>>>>> Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Fabian Hueske]

+1 to drop it.

Thanks, Fabian

Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Niels Basjes :

>  I would drop it.
>
> Niels Basjes
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, 
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
> > stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kostas
> >
> > > On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 to drop it.
> > >
> > > It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
> > > module sparse often means that there is low interest.
> > >
> > > 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：
> > >>
> > >>> 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 <
> trohrm...@apache.org
> > >;
> > >>> 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 <
> ches...@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>> 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 more obscure
> ones.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint,
> offers
> > too
> > >>>>> little value.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
> > compatible,
> > >>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration
> to
> > >>>>> Flink APIs.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
> > if we
> > >>>>> drop it
> > >>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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 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 new
> > distributed
> > >>>>>> architecture.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's
> Storm
> > >>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
> > >>>> architecture
> > >>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because
> once
> > we
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
> > newer
> > >>>>>> Flink versions.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
> > particular
> > >>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>> Till
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Niels Basjes]

 I would drop it.

Niels Basjes

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, 
wrote:

> +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also
> stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
>
> Cheers,
> Kostas
>
> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen  wrote:
> >
> > +1 to drop it.
> >
> > It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
> > module sparse often means that there is low interest.
> >
> > 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：
> >>
> >>> 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 more obscure ones.
> >>>
> >>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers
> too
> >>>>> little value.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still
> compatible,
> >>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
> >>>>> Flink APIs.
> >>>
> >>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even
> if we
> >>>>> drop it
> >>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 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 new
> distributed
> >>>>>> architecture.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> >>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
> >>>> architecture
> >>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once
> we
> >>>
> >>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all
> newer
> >>>>>> Flink versions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in
> particular
> >>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Till
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Kostas Kloudas]

+1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also 
stands in the way for future developments in Flink.

Cheers,
Kostas

> On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen  wrote:
> 
> +1 to drop it.
> 
> It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
> module sparse often means that there is low interest.
> 
> 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：
>> 
>>> 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 more obscure ones.
>>> 
>>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers too
>>>>> little value.
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still compatible,
>>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working.
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
>>>>> Flink APIs.
>>> 
>>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we
>>>>> drop it
>>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 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 new distributed
>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
>>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I see two options how to proceed:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
>>>> architecture
>>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
>>> 
>>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
>>>>>> Flink versions.
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
>>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Till
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Tzu-Li Chen]

+1 to drop it.

It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental
module sparse often means that there is low interest.

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：
>
>> 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 more obscure ones.
>>
>> > > flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers too
>> > > little value.
>> > >
>>
>> > > Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still compatible,
>> > > it's only topologies that aren't working.
>> > >
>> > > IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
>> > > Flink APIs.
>>
>> > > * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we
>> > > drop it
>> > > * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>> > >
>> > > 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 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 new distributed
>> > > > architecture.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
>> > > > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
>> > > >
>> > > > I see two options how to proceed:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
>> > architecture
>> > > > 2) Drop flink-storm
>> > > >
>>
>> > > > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
>>
>> > > > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
>> > > > Flink versions.
>> > > >
>>
>> > > > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
>> > > > if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > Till
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[远远]

+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
>
> --
> 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 more obscure ones.
>
> > > flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers too
> > > little value.
> > >
>
> > > Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still compatible,
> > > it's only topologies that aren't working.
> > >
> > > IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
> > > Flink APIs.
>
> > > * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we
> > > drop it
> > > * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
> > >
> > > 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 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 new distributed
> > > > architecture.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> > > > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> > > >
> > > > I see two options how to proceed:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
> > architecture
> > > > 2) Drop flink-storm
> > > >
>
> > > > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
>
> > > > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
> > > > Flink versions.
> > > >
>
> > > > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
> > > > if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

回复：[DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)]

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 more obscure ones.
> > flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers too
> > little value.
> >
> > Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still compatible,
> > it's only topologies that aren't working.
> >
> > IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
> > Flink APIs.
> > * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we
> > drop it
> > * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
> >
> > 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 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 new distributed
> > > architecture.
> > >
> > > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> > > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> > >
> > > I see two options how to proceed:
> > >
> > > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new
> architecture
> > > 2) Drop flink-storm
> > >
> > > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
> > > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
> > > Flink versions.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
> > > if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Hequn Cheng]

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 more obscure ones.
> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, offers too
> little value.
>
> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still compatible,
> it's only topologies that aren't working.
>
> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
> Flink APIs.
> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we
> drop it
> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>
> 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 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 new distributed
> > architecture.
> >
> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >
> > I see two options how to proceed:
> >
> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new architecture
> > 2) Drop flink-storm
> >
> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
> > Flink versions.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
> > if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[vino yang]

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 to the relevant users.

Thanks, vino.

Chesnay Schepler  于2018年9月28日周五 下午10:22写道：

> 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 wrapper parts of the part are still compatible,
> it's only topologies that aren't working.
>
> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to
> Flink APIs.
> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we
> drop it
> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.
>
> 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 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 new distributed
> > architecture.
> >
> > I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
> > compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.
> >
> > I see two options how to proceed:
> >
> > 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new architecture
> > 2) Drop flink-storm
> >
> > I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
> > remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
> > Flink versions.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular
> > if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Chesnay Schepler]

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 wrapper parts of the part are still compatible, 
it's only topologies that aren't working.


IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration to 
Flink APIs.
* bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even if we 
drop it

* topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then.

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 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 new distributed 
architecture.


I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm 
compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.


I see two options how to proceed:

1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new architecture
2) Drop flink-storm

I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we 
remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer 
Flink versions.


Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular 
if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.


[1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink

Cheers,
Till

[DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm?

[Till Rohrmann]

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 new distributed
architecture.

I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's Storm
compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it.

I see two options how to proceed:

1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new architecture
2) Drop flink-storm

I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because once we
remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all newer
Flink versions.

Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in particular if
you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future.

[1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink

Cheers,
Till