If there are no objections, I’d like to create the feature branch and push what 
I have so far. I’ve not had too much time lately to work on it, but other’s 
have expressed interest in contributing so I’d like to make it available.

-Taylor


> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> +1 on the idea.  I would love to contribute, but I doubt I will find time to 
> do it any time soon. - Bobby
> 
>    On Friday, September 16, 2016 12:05 AM, Satish Duggana 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Taylor,
> I am interested in contributing to this effort. Gone through Beam APIs
> earlier and had some initial thoughts on Storm runner. We can start with
> existing core storm constructs but it is better to design in such a way
> that these can be replaced with new APIs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Satish.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:35 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> I'm open to change, but yes, I started with core storm since it offers the
>> most flexibility wrt how Beam constructs are translated.
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Roshan Naik <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Good idea. Will the Beam API be implemented to run on top Storm Core
>>> primitives ?
>>> -roshan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 9/15/16, 2:00 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I¹ve been tinkering with implementing an Apache Beam runner on top of
>>>> Storm and would like to open it up so others in the community can
>>>> contribute. To that end I¹d like to propose creating a feature branch
>> for
>>>> that work if there are others who are interested in getting involved. We
>>>> did that a while back when storm-sql was originally developed.
>>>> 
>>>> Basically, review requirements for that branch would be relaxed during
>>>> development, with a final, strict review before merging back to one of
>>>> our main branches.
>>>> 
>>>> I¹d like to document what I have and future improvements in a proposal
>>>> document, and follow that with pushing the code to the feature branch
>> for
>>>> group collaboration.
>>>> 
>>>> Any thoughts? Anyone interested in contributing to such an effort?
>>>> 
>>>> -Taylor
>>> 
>> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to