+1, waiting for that. :) Currently,there are API changes going on in Beam. It seem they plan to get that done by the end of 2016.
~Satish. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 - Bobby > > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:30 AM, Arun Mahadevan < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > On 10/19/16, 8:58 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >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 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
