Hi Alex,
As we discussed on IRC, Oozie is mostly focus on the job execution: it
means that it can trigger/schedule the jobs. It will start a job when
another one is done, or another job in case of failure.
Falcon is more data motion oriented. It means it can trigger a job when
the data changed (the data coming from another job for instance).
You are right, in order to create a Falcon process, you have to create
the workflow.xml by hand. But a process can also be a pig process and
here you don't need the workflow.xml. I proposed to add new kind of
Falcon processes to avoid to create the workflow.xml by hand.
Regards
JB
On 09/09/2014 05:31 PM, Alex Nastetsky wrote:
Hi,
I have a general usage question about Falcon. I don't see a "user" mailing
list, so I am sending it here. If there's a better place to direct the
question, please let me know.
I have been looking at the OnBoarding:
http://falcon.incubator.apache.org/docs/OnBoarding.html
I understand that Falcon uses Oozie underneath. What is the advantage of
using Falcon instead of using Oozie directly?
It looks like you can specify in your Input Feed information about your
input data, but you can parameterize your paths in Oozie as well (using
job.properties).
I have also heard conflicting information about whether Falcon generates
Oozie workflow.xml files, but in that on-boarding example, it looks like
you need to create the workflow.xml manually. Which is correct?
Thanks in advance,
Alex.
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
