Thanks for starting this thread. If I had to guess, I would say there is more of a demand for Python as it's more widely used for data scientists/ analytics. Being pragmatic, the FnApiRunner already has more feature work than the Java so we should go with that.
-Sam On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:07 AM Daniel Oliveira <danolive...@google.com> wrote: > Hello Beam dev community, > > For those who don't know me, I work for Google and I've been working on > the Java reference runner, which is a portable, local Java runner (it's > basically the direct runner with the portability APIs implemented). Our > goal in working on this was to have a portable runner which ran locally so > it could be used by users for testing portable pipelines, devs for testing > new features with portability, and for runner authors to provide a simple > reference implementation of a portable runner. > > Due to various circumstances though, progress on the Java reference runner > has been pretty slow, and a Python runner which does pretty much the same > things was made to aid portability development in Python (called the > FnApiRunner). This runner is currently further along in feature work than > the Java reference runner, so we've been reevaluating if we should switch > to investing in it instead. > > My question to the community is: Which runner do you think would be more > valuable to the dev community and Beam users? For those of you who are > runner authors, do you have a preference for what language you'd like to > see a reference implementation in? > > Thanks, > Daniel Oliveira >
