I'd also vote for 3: I don't see much added value in separating the repos and I see much additional effort to be done in maintaining extra repo(s) (updating examples when new version of beam sdk comes out) and their infrastructure (jenkins, etc). What Lukasz Cwik said about mvn archetypes and how easy the examples can be to get starter examples from a common repo only strengthens my opinion.
Regarding 2: I think it's not good to have some official examples here and some there - IMO it can make a false impression (user experience) that some examples are less important than the others. Maybe a good idea is to encourage users to share their (independent, non official) examples and create a list of such on the beam site instead of 2? Łukasz czw., 9 sie 2018 o 11:35 Alexey Romanenko <aromanenko....@gmail.com> napisał(a): > 3 - I agree with JB, Charles and Lukasz arguments above saying why we need > to have examples and main code in the same repository (+ website code base > will move there soon). I don’t see any huge benefits to have examples aside > and, at the same time, it will bring additional complexity and burden for > project support. > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 08:18, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > For this kind of discussion, I would prefer to avoid Google Doc and > directly put the point/proposal on the mailing list. > > It's easier for the community to follow. > > The statement is more for 3 because it's more convenient for users to > easily find the examples and include in the distribution. > > Regards > JB > > On 08/08/2018 23:25, Charles Chen wrote: > > It looks like the main claim is that 1 and 2 have the benefit of > increasing visibility for examples on the Beam site. I agree with > Robert's comments on the doc which claim that this is orthogonal to > whether a separate repository is created (the comments are unresolved: > > https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1vhcKJlP0qH1C7NZPDjohT2PUbOD-k71avv1CjEYapdw/edit?disco=AAAABzifZxY > ). > > I would add that the maintenance and testing burden has not been > adequately addressed in the proposal (i.e. are we creating new Jenkins > jobs?; will postcommits on the main Beam repo run examples tests?; are > we releasing artifacts--if so, is this together with the main package or > separately in new packages?). If we go with the half-way solution in > (2), there is also the issue of where the threshold is--for example, if > a user-contributed example is particularly useful, do we move it to the > main repo? > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:35 PM Griselda Cuevas <g...@google.com > <mailto:g...@google.com <g...@google.com>>> wrote: > > I'd vote for 2. > > Giving independence to an example repository and creating the right > infrastructure to maintain them will give visibility to the efforts > our users are creating to solve their uses cases with Beam. I also > want to make the process of sharing common work more easily. > > Re:The examples that will remain in core, I agree that it's crucial > to keep some examples for testing. > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 11:44, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com > <mailto:lc...@google.com <lc...@google.com>>> wrote: > > I would vote for 3. > > My reasoning is that Java has a good mechanism to get a > starter/example project going by using the the maven archetypes > already. Our quickstart guide for Apache Beam for the Java SDK > already covers generating the examples archetype. > We could point users to the starter project at the end of the > java quickstart. > > If python/go have a similar mechanism that is commonly used, I > would go with those over creating a separate repo for examples > and adding the maintenance burden involved. > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:01 AM Rui Wang <ruw...@google.com > <mailto:ruw...@google.com <ruw...@google.com>>> wrote: > > 2 - examples that rely on experimental API can still stay in > where they are because such examples could be changed. > > -Rui > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:52 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com > <mailto:c...@google.com <c...@google.com>>> wrote: > > 3 - We benefit from increased test coverage by having > examples together with the rest of the code. As Robert > mentions in the doc, hosting the Beam examples in the > main repository is the best way to keep the examples > visible, tested and maintained. Given that we recently > moved to a single repository for the website since that > previously caused a lot of pain, it makes sense to be > consistent here. > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:27 AM Ahmet Altay > <al...@google.com <mailto:al...@google.com > <al...@google.com>>> wrote: > > 2 - Similar to Huygaa, I see value in keeping a core > set of examples tested and maintained against head. > At the same time I understand the value of a growing > set of community grown examples that are targeted > against a pre-defined versions of Beam and not > necessarily updated at every release. > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Huygaa Batsaikhan > <bat...@google.com <mailto:bat...@google.com > <bat...@google.com>>> wrote: > > 2 - I like the idea of having a separate repo > where we can have more freedom to check in > examples. However, we benefit from having > immediate core examples in Beam for testing > purposes. > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM David Cavazos > <dcava...@google.com > <mailto:dcava...@google.com <dcava...@google.com>>> > wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > We discussed several options as well as some > of the implications of each option. Please > vote for your favorite option, feel free to > back it up with any reasons that make you > feel that way. > > 1) Move *all* samples to a *new > *examples*repository* > 2) Move *some* samples to a *new > *examples*repository* > 3) Leave samples where they are > > Some implications to creating a new repository: > - Every example would be independent from > every other example, so tests can be run in > parallel > - Examples would now show how to use Beam > /externally/ > - The examples repository would need a > testing infrastructure > - Decoupling makes examples easier to test > on different versions > - Easier to copy-paste an existing example > and start from there, almost like a template > - Smaller size for the core Beam library > - Two different repositories to maintain > - Versioning could mirror Beam's current version > > Link to proposal > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhcKJlP0qH1C7NZPDjohT2PUbOD-k71avv1CjEYapdw/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
