I created a v2.2 tag. Let me look to see what happened. On Dec 13, 2017 2:31 PM, "Steve Niemitz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I was trying to build 2.2.0 from > source today and noticed there was no v2.2.0 tag (only v2.2.0-RC4). I > assume that's not intentional? > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Eugene for opening the poll (sorry if I didn't before I was >> quite busy in the last two days but expected to do it today). >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I've sent the poll >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bc2e184a24de9dbc8184ff >> d2720d1894010497d47d956b395e037df@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >> >> Will figure out how to tweet from @ApacheBeam, and sent the Twitter >> poll >> >> as well (or ask someone to). >> > >> > >> > I tweeted the poll. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:47 PM Lukasz Cwik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> +1 on moving forward with the plan suggested by kirpichov@ >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 to moving forward with this plan. >> >>>> >> >>>> (FWIW, this seems *less* backwards incompatible than, say, moving >> from >> >>>> Spark 1 to Spark 2, which was decided much quicker. I suppose the >> >>>> Spark change has a lower bound on the number of users it could impact >> >>>> though.) >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Eugene Kirpichov < >> [email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > Okay, then let's go forward. Seems that we should: >> >>>> > - Open a new poll on user@, in light of 2.2 having been released >> >>>> > - Open a twitter poll >> >>>> > - Tweet that there's also a poll going on on user@ >> >>>> > - Runner authors will reach out to respective runner user >> communities >> >>>> > - 2 weeks later we gather results and decide >> >>>> > ? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:16 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> +1 For Eugene’s arguments waiting for Beam 3.0 seems still far >> away, >> >>>> >> and starting to improve Beam to offer a Java 8 friendly experience >> >>>> >> seems like an excellent idea. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> I understand the backwards compatibility argument. We should do >> the >> >>>> >> poll in twitter + try to reach more users for comments. If you >> >>>> >> consider that it is worth, I can open a second poll at user@. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> In any case we should try to move forward, even if we have more >> than >> >>>> >> 5% of users who want to stay on Java 7 we can consider to maintain >> >>>> >> minor releases of a backwards compatible version where we can >> >>>> >> backport >> >>>> >> only critical fixes e.g. security/data related errors but nothing >> >>>> >> new, >> >>>> >> in case some user really needs to have them. Of course this can be >> >>>> >> some extra work (to be discussed). >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> >> <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> > +1, and sorry again, I thought we got an consensus. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Regards >> >>>> >> > JB >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > On 12/05/2017 07:10 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> +1 to the poll and also to Reuven's point. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Those without a support contract would have been using JDK 7 >> >>>> >> >> without >> >>>> >> >> security updates for years. IMO it seems harmful, as a >> netizen, to >> >>>> >> >> encourage >> >>>> >> >> its use/existence. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> If there's no noise from the prior thread, then I would assume >> no >> >>>> >> >> one >> >>>> >> >> on >> >>>> >> >> user@ has any objection. Anyone else with customers should >> reach >> >>>> >> >> out to >> >>>> >> >> them. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Kenn >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Reuven Lax <[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Technically it's a backwards-incompatible change, however >> if >> >>>> >> >> we are >> >>>> >> >> convinced the risk is low we could do it. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> As mentioned on the original thread, it's not clear that >> all >> >>>> >> >> Beam >> >>>> >> >> users read >> >>>> >> >> user@ - e.g. most Dataflow users definitely do not. I >> think we >> >>>> >> >> need >> >>>> >> >> to >> >>>> >> >> separately reach out to users of each runner through >> >>>> >> >> runner-specific >> >>>> >> >> channels. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Reuven >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Eugene Kirpichov >> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On the original thread >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9 >> f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e >> 9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E> >> >>>> >> >> , >> >>>> >> >> Robert and Ismaël were in favor of no major version >> change >> >>>> >> >> [Ismaël >> >>>> >> >> said:/Also I am afraid that if we wait/ >> >>>> >> >> /until we have enough changes to switch Beam to a new >> >>>> >> >> major >> >>>> >> >> version the >> >>>> >> >> switch to Java 8 will happen too late, probably after >> Java >> >>>> >> >> 8's >> >>>> >> >> end >> >>>> >> >> of >> >>>> >> >> life. And I am not exaggerating, Java 8 is planned to >> EOL >> >>>> >> >> next >> >>>> >> >> march >> >>>> >> >> 2018!/]; JB and now Reuven are in favor of a major >> version >> >>>> >> >> change; >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> nobody so far argued against switching to Java8 in >> >>>> >> >> general. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> I'm personally in favor of no major version change >> (i.e. >> >>>> >> >> not >> >>>> >> >> waiting >> >>>> >> >> until all other large changes for Beam 3.0 converge, >> which >> >>>> >> >> will >> >>>> >> >> likely >> >>>> >> >> be many months), because: >> >>>> >> >> - Reasons Ismaël cited; plus the reason that most >> people >> >>>> >> >> are >> >>>> >> >> likely >> >>>> >> >> already using Java 8. >> >>>> >> >> - Going Java8-only earlier will make other Beam 3.0 >> APIs >> >>>> >> >> better >> >>>> >> >> for >> >>>> >> >> Java8 users, because we (Beam contributors) will have >> >>>> >> >> experience >> >>>> >> >> working >> >>>> >> >> with them within the SDK in Java8 (e.g. writing tests >> with >> >>>> >> >> use >> >>>> >> >> of >> >>>> >> >> lambdas and noticing whether it's clunky, or whether >> some >> >>>> >> >> other >> >>>> >> >> Beam >> >>>> >> >> APIs need better Java8 support). >> >>>> >> >> - Going Java8 will make it more reasonable to include >> >>>> >> >> (mostly >> >>>> >> >> or >> >>>> >> >> only) >> >>>> >> >> Java8 snippets in Beam documentation, which will >> obviously >> >>>> >> >> look >> >>>> >> >> more >> >>>> >> >> concise and attractive, addressing one of the common >> >>>> >> >> concerns >> >>>> >> >> of >> >>>> >> >> Beam >> >>>> >> >> users that it has a heavyweight API compared to >> >>>> >> >> functional-style >> >>>> >> >> APIs of >> >>>> >> >> Spark etc. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> I think resolving this via a poll of users would be >> >>>> >> >> reasonable. >> >>>> >> >> I'd >> >>>> >> >> suggest e.g. the following phrasing: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Apache Beam is considering dropping support for Java 7, >> >>>> >> >> and >> >>>> >> >> supporting >> >>>> >> >> only Java 8 and above in a subsequent release. How >> would >> >>>> >> >> it >> >>>> >> >> impact >> >>>> >> >> your >> >>>> >> >> usage of Beam? >> >>>> >> >> - I am already using only Java 8+ for building my Beam >> >>>> >> >> code >> >>>> >> >> - I am using Java 7 for building my Beam code, but I >> would >> >>>> >> >> have >> >>>> >> >> no >> >>>> >> >> trouble switching to Java 8 >> >>>> >> >> - I am using Java 7 for building my Beam code, and >> >>>> >> >> dropping >> >>>> >> >> Java 7 >> >>>> >> >> would >> >>>> >> >> be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release >> for >> >>>> >> >> me >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> We could tweet this poll on Apache Beam twitter and >> >>>> >> >> publish on >> >>>> >> >> user@, >> >>>> >> >> and, say, if we receive 5% or fewer votes for option 3 >> >>>> >> >> after >> >>>> >> >> keeping it >> >>>> >> >> open for 2 weeks, then adopt Java 8 without a major >> >>>> >> >> version >> >>>> >> >> change. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> WDYT? >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:34 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Good idea ! Definitely +1 >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Regards >> >>>> >> >> JB >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On 12/05/2017 05:25 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: >> >>>> >> >> > We should bring this up on the Beam 3.0 thread. >> >>>> >> >> Since >> >>>> >> >> it's >> >>>> >> >> technically a >> >>>> >> >> > backwards-incompatible change, it might make a >> good >> >>>> >> >> item >> >>>> >> >> for Beam >> >>>> >> >> 3.0. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Reuven >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste >> >>>> >> >> Onofré >> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > My apologizes, I thought we had a consensus >> >>>> >> >> already. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Regards >> >>>> >> >> > JB >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > On 12/04/2017 11:22 PM, Eugene Kirpichov >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Thanks JB for sending the detailed notes >> >>>> >> >> about >> >>>> >> >> new >> >>>> >> >> stuff >> >>>> >> >> in 2.2.0! A lot >> >>>> >> >> > of exciting things indeed. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Regarding Java 8: I thought our >> consensus >> >>>> >> >> was to >> >>>> >> >> have the >> >>>> >> >> release notes >> >>>> >> >> > say that we're *considering* going >> >>>> >> >> Java8-only, >> >>>> >> >> and >> >>>> >> >> use >> >>>> >> >> that to get more >> >>>> >> >> > opinions from the user community - but I >> >>>> >> >> can't >> >>>> >> >> find >> >>>> >> >> the >> >>>> >> >> emails that made >> >>>> >> >> > me think so. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > +Ismaël Mejía <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: >> [email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> - do >> >>>> >> >> > you think we should formally conclude >> the >> >>>> >> >> vote >> >>>> >> >> on >> >>>> >> >> the >> >>>> >> >> thread [VOTE] >> >>>> >> >> > [DISCUSSION] Remove support for Java 7? >> >>>> >> >> > Or should we take more steps - e.g. >> perhaps >> >>>> >> >> tweet a >> >>>> >> >> link >> >>>> >> >> to that thread >> >>>> >> >> > from the Beam twitter account, ask >> people >> >>>> >> >> to >> >>>> >> >> chime >> >>>> >> >> in, >> >>>> >> >> and wait for say >> >>>> >> >> > 2 weeks before declaring a conclusion? >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Let's also have a process JIRA for going >> >>>> >> >> Java8. >> >>>> >> >> I've >> >>>> >> >> filed one: >> >>>> >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285 >> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285 >> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285>> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:58 AM >> >>>> >> >> Jean-Baptiste >> >>>> >> >> Onofré >> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>>> >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Just an important note that we >> forgot >> >>>> >> >> to >> >>>> >> >> mention. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > !! The 2.2.0 release will be the >> last >> >>>> >> >> one >> >>>> >> >> supporting >> >>>> >> >> Spark 1.x and >> >>>> >> >> > Java 7 !! >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Starting from Beam 2.3.0, the Spark >> >>>> >> >> runner >> >>>> >> >> will work >> >>>> >> >> only with >> >>>> >> >> > Spark 2.x and we >> >>>> >> >> > will focus only Java 8. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > Regards >> >>>> >> >> > JB >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > On 12/04/2017 10:15 AM, >> Jean-Baptiste >> >>>> >> >> Onofré >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> > > Thanks Reuven ! >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > I would like to emphasize on >> some >> >>>> >> >> highlights in >> >>>> >> >> 2.2.0 release: >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > - New IOs have been introduced: >> >>>> >> >> > > * TikaIO leveraging Apache >> Tika, >> >>>> >> >> allowing >> >>>> >> >> the >> >>>> >> >> deal with a lot >> >>>> >> >> > of different >> >>>> >> >> > > data formats >> >>>> >> >> > > * RedisIO to read and write >> >>>> >> >> key/value >> >>>> >> >> pairs >> >>>> >> >> from a Redis >> >>>> >> >> > server. This >> >>>> >> >> > IO will >> >>>> >> >> > > be soon extended to Redis >> PubSub. >> >>>> >> >> > > * FileIO provides transforms >> for >> >>>> >> >> working >> >>>> >> >> with >> >>>> >> >> files (raw). >> >>>> >> >> > Especially, it >> >>>> >> >> > > provides matching file patterns >> and >> >>>> >> >> read >> >>>> >> >> on >> >>>> >> >> patterns. It can be >> >>>> >> >> > easily >> >>>> >> >> > extended >> >>>> >> >> > > for a specific format (like we >> do >> >>>> >> >> in >> >>>> >> >> AvroIO >> >>>> >> >> or >> >>>> >> >> TextIO now). >> >>>> >> >> > > * SolrIO to interact with >> Apache >> >>>> >> >> Solr >> >>>> >> >> (Lucene) >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > - On the other hand, >> improvements >> >>>> >> >> have >> >>>> >> >> been >> >>>> >> >> performed on >> >>>> >> >> > existing IOs: >> >>>> >> >> > > * We started to introduce >> readAll >> >>>> >> >> pattern >> >>>> >> >> in >> >>>> >> >> IOs (AvroIO, >> >>>> >> >> > TextIO, JdbcIO, >> >>>> >> >> > > ...), allowing to pass "request" >> >>>> >> >> arguments >> >>>> >> >> via an >> >>>> >> >> input PCollection. >> >>>> >> >> > > * ElasticsearchIO has an >> improved >> >>>> >> >> support >> >>>> >> >> of >> >>>> >> >> different >> >>>> >> >> > Elasticsearch >> >>>> >> >> > version >> >>>> >> >> > > (including Elasticsearch 5.x). >> It >> >>>> >> >> also >> >>>> >> >> now >> >>>> >> >> supports SSL/TLS. >> >>>> >> >> > > * HBaseIO is now able to do >> >>>> >> >> dynamic >> >>>> >> >> work >> >>>> >> >> rebalancing >> >>>> >> >> > > * KinesisIO uses a more >> accurate >> >>>> >> >> watermark >> >>>> >> >> (based on >> >>>> >> >> > approximateArrivalTimestamp) >> >>>> >> >> > > * TextIO now supports custom >> >>>> >> >> delimiter >> >>>> >> >> and like >> >>>> >> >> AvroIO, >> >>>> >> >> > supports the >> >>>> >> >> > readAll >> >>>> >> >> > > pattern, >> >>>> >> >> > > * Performance improvements on >> >>>> >> >> JdbcIO >> >>>> >> >> when >> >>>> >> >> it >> >>>> >> >> has to read lot >> >>>> >> >> > of rows >> >>>> >> >> > > * Kafka write supports >> >>>> >> >> Exactly-Once >> >>>> >> >> pattern >> >>>> >> >> (introduce in >> >>>> >> >> > Kafka 0.11.x) >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > - A new DSL has been introduced: >> >>>> >> >> the SQL >> >>>> >> >> DSL ! >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > We are now focus on 2.3.0 >> release >> >>>> >> >> with >> >>>> >> >> new >> >>>> >> >> improvements and >> >>>> >> >> > features ! >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > Stay tuned ! >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > JB on behalf of the Apache Beam >> >>>> >> >> community. >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > On 12/02/2017 11:40 PM, Reuven >> Lax >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> > >> The Apache Beam community is >> >>>> >> >> pleased to >> >>>> >> >> announce the >> >>>> >> >> > availability of the >> >>>> >> >> > >> 2.2.0 release. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> This release adds support for >> >>>> >> >> generic >> >>>> >> >> file >> >>>> >> >> sources and sinks >> >>>> >> >> > (beyond TextIO >> >>>> >> >> > >> and AvroIO) using FileIO, >> >>>> >> >> including >> >>>> >> >> support for >> >>>> >> >> dynamic >> >>>> >> >> > filenames using >> >>>> >> >> > >> readAll; this allows streaming >> >>>> >> >> pipelines >> >>>> >> >> to now >> >>>> >> >> read from files by >> >>>> >> >> > >> continuously monitoring a >> >>>> >> >> directory for >> >>>> >> >> new >> >>>> >> >> filw. Many other >> >>>> >> >> > IOs are >> >>>> >> >> > improved, >> >>>> >> >> > >> notably including exactly-once >> >>>> >> >> support >> >>>> >> >> for >> >>>> >> >> the >> >>>> >> >> Kafka sink. Initial >> >>>> >> >> > support for >> >>>> >> >> > >> BEAM-SQL is also included in >> this >> >>>> >> >> release. >> >>>> >> >> For a >> >>>> >> >> more-complete >> >>>> >> >> > list of major >> >>>> >> >> > >> changes in the release, please >> >>>> >> >> refer to >> >>>> >> >> the >> >>>> >> >> release notes [2]. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> The 2.2.0 release is now the >> >>>> >> >> recommended >> >>>> >> >> version; we encourage >> >>>> >> >> > everyone to >> >>>> >> >> > >> upgrade from any earlier >> releases. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> We’d like to invite everyone to >> >>>> >> >> try out >> >>>> >> >> Apache >> >>>> >> >> Beam today and >> >>>> >> >> > consider >> >>>> >> >> > >> joining our vibrant community. >> We >> >>>> >> >> welcome >> >>>> >> >> feedback, >> >>>> >> >> > contribution and >> >>>> >> >> > >> participation through our >> mailing >> >>>> >> >> lists, >> >>>> >> >> issue >> >>>> >> >> tracker, pull >> >>>> >> >> > requests, and >> >>>> >> >> > >> events. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> - Reuven Lax, on behalf of the >> >>>> >> >> Apache >> >>>> >> >> Beam >> >>>> >> >> community. >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> [1] >> >>>> >> >> https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/ >> >>>> >> >> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/ >> >>>> >> >> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/>> >> >>>> >> >> > >> [2] >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje >> ctId=12319527&version=12341044 >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proj >> ectId=12319527&version=12341044> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proj >> ectId=12319527&version=12341044 >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proj >> ectId=12319527&version=12341044>> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > -- >> >>>> >> >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> >> >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >> > >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >> >>>> >> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >>>> >> >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > -- >> >>>> >> >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> >> >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >> > >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>> >> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >>>> >> >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> -- >> >>>> >> >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >>>> >> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > -- >> >>>> >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> >> > [email protected] >> >>>> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >>>> >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >
