@Taylor, I want to work with Bobby, my wiki name is "longda". ThanksLongda------------------------------------------------------------------From:Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>Send Time:2015年11月20日(星期五) 06:54To:P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>，dev@storm.apache.org <dev@storm.apache.org>Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Plan for Merging JStorm Code Sorry about this taking so long. I am revans2 on the cwiki. - Bobby
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: All I have at this point is a placeholder wiki entry [1], and a lot of local notes that likely would only make sense to me. Let me know your wiki username and I’ll give you permissions. The same goes for anyone else who wants to help. -Taylor [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61328109 > On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Taylor and others I was hoping to get started filing JIRA and planning on how >we are going to do the java migration + JStorm merger. Is anyone else >starting to do this? If not would anyone object to me starting on it? - Bobby > > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ><ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for putting this together Basti, that comparison helps a lot. > > And thanks Bobby for converting it into markdown. I was going to just attach >the spreadsheet to JIRA, but markdown is a much better solution. > > -Taylor > >> On Nov 12, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> >>wrote: >> >> I translated the excel spreadsheet into a markdown file and put up a pull >>request for it. >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/877 >> I did a few edits to it to make it work with Markdown, and to add in a few >>of my own comments. I also put in a field for JIRAs to be able to track the >>migration. >> Overall I think your evaluation was very good. We have a fair amount of >>work ahead of us to decide what version of various features we want to go >>forward with. >> - Bobby >> >> >> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:37 AM, 刘键(Basti Liu) >><basti...@alibaba-inc.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Bobby & Jungtaek, >> >> Thanks for your replay. >> I totally agree that compatibility is the most important thing. Actually, >>JStorm has been compatible with the user API of Storm. >> As you mentioned below, we indeed still have some features different between >>Storm and JStorm. I have tried to list them (minor update or improvements are >>not included). >> Please refer to attachment for details. If any missing, please help to point >>out. (The current working features are probably missing here.) >> Just have a look at these differences. For the missing features in JStorm, I >>did not see any obstacle which will block the merge to JStorm. >> For the features which has different solution between Storm and JStorm, we >>can evaluate the solution one by one to decision which one is appropriate. >> After the finalization of evaluation, I think JStorm team can take the >>merging job and publish a stable release in 2 months. >> But anyway, the detailed implementation for these features with different >>solution is transparent to user. So, from user's point of view, there is not >>any compatibility problem. >> >> Besides compatibility, by our experience, stability is also important and is >>not an easy job. 4 people in JStorm team took almost one year to finish the >>porting from "clojure core" >> to "java core", and to make it stable. Of course, we have many devs in >>community to make the porting job faster. But it still needs a long time to >>run many online complex topologys to find bugs and fix them. So, that is the >>reason why I proposed to do merging and build on a stable "java core". >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bobby Evans [mailto:ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:51 PM >> To: dev@storm.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Plan for Merging JStorm Code >> >> +1 for doing a 1.0 release based off of the clojure 0.11.x code. Migrating >>the APIs to org.apache.storm is a big non-backwards compatible move, and a >>major version bump to 2.x seems like a good move there. >> +1 for the release plan >> >> I would like the move for user facing APIs to org.apache to be one of the >>last things we do. Translating clojure code into java and moving it to >>org.apache I am not too concerned about. >> >> Basti, >> We have two code bases that have diverged significantly from one another in >>terms of functionality. The storm code now or soon will have A Heartbeat >>Server, Nimbus HA (Different Implementation), Resource Aware Scheduling, a >>distributed cache like API, log searching, security, massive performance >>improvements, shaded almost all of our dependencies, a REST API for >>programtically accessing everything on the UI, and I am sure I am missing a >>few other things. JStorm also has many changes including cgroup isolation, >>restructured zookeeper layout, classpath isolation, and more too. >> No matter what we do it will be a large effort to port changes from one code >>base to another, and from clojure to java. I proposed this initially because >>it can be broken up into incremental changes. It may take a little longer, >>but we will always have a working codebase that is testable and compatible >>with the current storm release, at least until we move the user facing APIs >>to be under org.apache. This lets the community continue to build and test >>the master branch and report problems that they find, which is incredibly >>valuable. I personally don't think it will be much easier, especially if we >>are intent on always maintaining compatibility with storm. - Bobby >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 5:42 AM, 刘键(Basti Liu) >><basti...@alibaba-inc.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Taylor, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the merge plan. I have a question about “Phase 2.2”. >> >> Do you mean community plan to create a fresh new “java core” based on >>current “clojure core” firstly, and then migrate the features from JStorm? >> >> If so, it confused me. It is really a huge job which might require a long >>developing time to make it stable, while JStorm is already a stable version. >> >> The release planned to be release after Nov 11th has already run online >>stably several month in Alibaba. >> >> Besides this, there are many valuable internal requirements in Alibaba, the >>fast evolution of JStorm is forseeable in next few months. >> >> If the “java core” is totally fresh new, it might bring many problems for >>the coming merge. >> >> So, from the point of this view, I think it is much better and easier to >>migrate the features of “clojure core” basing on JStorm for the “java core”. >> >> Please correct me, if any misunderstanding. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Basti >> >> >> >> 发件人: P. Taylor Goetz [mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com] >> 发送时间: 2015年11月11日 5:32 >> 收件人: dev@storm.apache.org >> 主题: [DISCUSS] Plan for Merging JStorm Code >> >> >> >> Based on a number of discussions regarding merging the JStorm code, I’ve >>tried to distill the ideas presented and inserted some of my own. The result >>is below. >> >> >> >> I’ve divided the plan into three phases, though they are not necessarily >>sequential — obviously some tasks can take place in parallel. >> >> >> >> None of this is set in stone, just presented for discussion. Any and all >>comments are welcome. >> >> >> >> ------- >> >> >> >> Phase 1 - Plan for 0.11.x Release >> >> 1. Determine feature set for 0.11.x and publish to wiki [1]. >> >> 2. Announce feature-freeze for 0.11.x >> >> 3. Create 0.11.x branch from master (Phase 2.4 can begin.) >> >> 4. Release 0.11.0 (or whatever version # we want to use) >> >> 5. Bug fixes and subsequent releases from 0.11.x-branch >> >> >> >> >> >> Phase 2 - Prepare for Merge ("master" and "jstorm-import" branches) >> >> 1. Determine/document unique features in JStorm (e.g. classpath isolation, >>cgroups, etc.) and create JIRA for migrating the feature. >> >> 2. Create JIRA for migrating each clojure component (or logical group of >>components) to Java. Assumes tests will be ported as well. >> >> 3. Discuss/establish style guide for Java coding conventions. Consider using >>Oracle’s or Google’s Java conventions as a base — they are both pretty solid. >> >> 4. align package names (e.g backtype.storm --> org.apache.storm / >>com.alibaba.jstorm --> org.apache.storm) (Phase 3 can begin) >> >> >> >> >> >> Phase 3 - Migrate Clojure --> Java >> >> 1. Port code/tests to Java, leveraging existing JStorm code wherever >>possible (core functionality only, features distinct to JStorm migrated >>separately). >> >> 2. Port JStorm-specific features. >> >> 3. Begin releasing preview/beta versions. >> >> 4. Code cleanup (across the board) and refactoring using established coding >>conventions, and leveraging PMD/Checkstyle reports for reference. (Note: good >>oportunity for new contributors.) >> >> 5. Release 0.12.0 (or whatever version # we want to use) and lift feature >>freeze. >> >> >> >> >> >> Notes: >> >> We should consider bumping up to version 1.0 sometime soon and then >>switching to semantic versioning [3] from then on. >> >> >> >> >> >> With the exception of package name alignment, the "jstorm-import" branch >>will largely be read-only throughout the process. >> >> >> >> During migration, it's probably easiest to operate with two local clones of >>the Apache Storm repo: one for working (i.e. checked out to working branch) >>and one for reference/copying (i.e. checked out to "jstorm-import"). >> >> >> >> Feature-freeze probably only needs to be enforced against core >>functionality. Components under "external" can likely be exempt, but we >>should figure out a process for accepting and releasing new features during >>the migration. >> >> >> >> Performance testing should be continuous throughout the process. Since we >>don't really have ASF infrastructure for performance testing, we will need a >>volunteer(s) to host and run the performance tests. Performance test results >>can be posted to the wiki [2]. It would probably be a good idea to establish >>a baseline with the 0.10.0 release. >> >> >> >> I’ve attached an analysis document Sean Zhong put together a while back to >>the JStorm merge JIRA [4]. The analysis was against the 0.9.3 release but is >>still relevant and has a lot of good information. >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STORM/Release+0.11.0+Feature+Set >> >> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STORM/Storm+Home >> >> [3] http://semver.org >> >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-717 >> >> >> >> >> >> -Taylor >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
