On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:39 AM Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > You probably know that there has been for several months an work > developing a new Spark runner based on Spark Structured Streaming > framework. This work is located in a feature branch here: > https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/spark-runner_structured-streaming > > To attract more contributors and get some user feedback, we think it is > time to merge it to master. Before doing so, some steps need to be achieved: > > - finish the work on spark Encoders (that allow to call Beam coders) > because, right now, the runner is in an unstable state (some transforms > use the new way of doing ser/de and some use the old one, making a > pipeline incoherent toward serialization) > > - clean history: The history contains commits from November 2018, so > there is a good amount of work, thus a consequent number of commits. > They were already squashed but not from September 2019
I don't think the number of commits should be an issue--we shouldn't just squash years worth of history away. (OTOH, if this is a case of this branch containing lots of little, irrelevant commits that would have normally been squashed away in the normal review process we do for the main branch, then, yes, some cleanup could be nice.) > Regarding status: > > - the runner passes 89% of the validates runner tests in batch mode. We > hope to pass more with the new Encoders > > - Streaming mode is barely started (waiting for the multi-aggregations > support in spark SS framework from the Spark community) > > - Runner can execute Nexmark > > - Some things are not wired up yet > > - Beam Schemas not wired with Spark Schemas > > - Optional features of the model not implemented: state api, timer > api, splittable doFn api, … > > WDYT, can we merge it to master once the 2 steps are done ? I think that as long as it sits parallel to the existing runner, and is clearly marked with its status, it makes sense to me. How many changes does it make to the existing codebase (as opposed to add new code)?
