Hi Davor, Not sure about it being the first priority since a lot og other things is needed too - but since you assumed it was "provocative" I guess it was expected ;).
However having a real structure of "TCK" with a reporting for each execution instead of a compatibility matrix would be beneficial. It means a module of tests covering 100% of beam features and their composition you can import as a surefire dependency to validate your runner impl. Today it is hacked in core tests with categories and mixed with core tests. (Automatic) Reporting is also lacking. So extracting it can be a quick win allowing to work on actual runners portability and unify the behaviors. It can also lead to extract a clear and unified API from the core and allow a user to not depend on implementations at all when working with beam but this is more work. In any case +1 to sanitize it before having more runners and less consistency accross them which would defeat beam goals. Le 14 janv. 2018 05:38, "Austin Bennett" <[email protected]> a écrit : Hi Davor, I wonder what you mean by the thought of prioritizing diversity across runners. * That there is not full parity across runners: https://beam.apache.org/ documentation/runners/capability-matrix/ * That there is an imbalance of users relying on specific runners (Haven't seen any usage data)? * That Beam should continue to make available more runners (ex on top of https://www.wallaroolabs.com) * ? Other Am new to the list, learning/playing with Beam, and look forward to contributing. Best, Austin On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Davor Bonaci <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone -- > Apache Beam was established as a top-level project a year ago (on December > 21, to be exact). This first anniversary is a great opportunity for us to > look back at the past year, celebrate its successes, learn from any > mistakes we have made, and plan for the next 1+ years. > > I’d like to invite everyone in the community, particularly users and > observers on this mailing list, to participate in this discussion. Apache > Beam is your project and I, for one, would much appreciate your candid > thoughts and comments. Just as some other projects do, I’d like to make > this “state of the project” discussion an annual tradition in this > community. > > In terms of successes, the availability of the first stable release, > version 2.0.0, was the biggest and most important milestone last year. > Additionally, we have expanded the project’s breadth with new components, > including several new runners, SDKs, and DSLs, and interconnected a large > number of storage/messaging systems with new Beam IOs. In terms of > community growth, crossing 200 lifetime individual contributors and > achieving 76 contributors to a single release were other highlights. We > have doubled the number of committers, and invited a handful of new PMC > members. Thanks to each and every one of you for making all of this > possible in our first year. > > On the other hand, in such a young project as Beam, there are naturally > many areas for improvement. This is the principal purpose of this thread > (and any of its forks). To organize the separate discussions, I’d suggest > to fork separate threads for different discussion areas: > * Culture and governance (anything related to people and their behavior) > * Community growth (what can we do to further grow a diverse and vibrant > community) > * Technical execution (anything related to releases, their frequency, > website, infrastructure) > * Feature roadmap for 2018 (what can we do to make the project more > attractive to users, Beam 3.0, etc.). > > I know many passionate folks who particularly care about each of these > areas, but let me call on some folks from the community to get things > started: Ismael for culture, Gris for community, JB for technical > execution, and Ben for feature roadmap. > > Perhaps we can use this thread to discuss project-wide vision. To seed > that discussion, I’d start somewhat provocatively -- we aren’t doing so > well on the diversity of users across runners, which is very important to > the realization of the project’s vision. Would you agree, and would you be > willing to make it the project’s #1 priority for the next 1-2 years? > > Thanks -- and please join us in what would hopefully be a productive and > informative discussion that shapes the future of this project! > > Davor >
