I think it makes sense to keep it in a separate repo. It's a good chance to test the pros and cons of "splitting flink repository".
Btw, I think we will change the package path from "com.ververica" to "org.apache.flink" even if it goes into a separate repo, right? Best, Jark On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 15:15, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > I would keep statefun in a separate repo in the beginning, for the reasons > you mentioned. > > Best, > Aljoscha > > > On 15. Oct 2019, at 23:40, Flavio Pompermaier <pomperma...@okkam.it> > wrote: > > > > Definitely on the same page..+1 to keep it in a separate repo (at least > > until the cose becomes "stable" and widely adopted from the community) > > > > Il Mar 15 Ott 2019, 23:17 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > >> Hi Flink folks! > >> > >> After the positive reaction to the contribution proposal for Stateful > >> Functions, I would like to kick off the discussion for the big > question: In > >> which form should it go into Flink? > >> > >> Before jumping into the "repository" question directly, let's get some > >> clarity on what would be our high-level goal with this project and the > >> contribution. > >> My thinking so far was: > >> > >> - Stateful Functions is a way for Flink and stream processing to become > >> applicable for more general application development. That is a chance to > >> grow our community to a new crowd of developers. > >> > >> - While adding this to Flink gives synergies with the runtime it build > on > >> top of, it makes sense to offer the new developers a lightweight way to > get > >> involved. Simple setup, easy contributions. > >> > >> - This is a new project, the API and many designs are not frozen at > this > >> point and may still change heavily. > >> To become really good, the project needs to still make a bunch of > >> iterations (no pun intended) and change many things quickly. > >> > >> - The Stateful Functions project will likely try to release very > >> frequently in its early days, to improve quickly and gather feedback > fast. > >> Being bound to Flink core release cycle would hurt here. > >> > >> > >> I believe that with all those goals, adding Stateful Functions to the > Flink > >> core repository would not make sense. Flink core has processes that make > >> sense for an established project that needs to guarantee stability. > These > >> processes are simply prohibitive for new projects to develop. > >> In addition, the Flink main repository is gigantic, has a build system > and > >> CI system that cannot handle the size of the project any more. Not the > best > >> way to start expanding into a new community. > >> > >> In some sense, Stateful Functions could make sense as an independent > >> project, but it is so tightly coupled to Flink right now that I think an > >> even better fit is a separate repository in Flink. > >> Think Hive and Hadoop in the early days. That way, we get the synergy > >> between the two (the same community drives them) while letting both > move at > >> their own speed. > >> It would somehow mean two closely related projects shepherded by the > same > >> community. > >> > >> It might be possible at a later stage to either merge this into Flink > core > >> (once Stateful Functions is more settled) or even spin this out as a > >> standalone Apache project, if that is how the community develops. > >> > >> That is my main motivation. It is not driven primarily by technicalities > >> like code versioning and dependencies, but much rather by what is the > best > >> setup to develop this as Flink's way to expand its community towards new > >> users from a different background. > >> > >> Curious to hear if that makes sense to you. > >> > >> Best, > >> Stephan > >> > >
