The streams API implementation has limited usage of 1.8 features and can be easily ported to 1.7 if required. The examples are written in 1.8, the thought being users would stick to the Java 8 style usage (lambdas) from the beginning. If there is consensus we could also consider moving the 1.x branch to JDK 8.
Anyways would like interested folks to start reviewing the changes so that we can take it forward. Thanks, Arun On 12/23/16, 10:09 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: >FYI, I've realized that internal of Stream API (pull request) relies on JDK >8 (what I've found is 'static method in interface' and maybe more) so for >now Stream API is expected to be included for at least Storm 2.0.0 unless >the PR is modified to fit to JDK 7. > >- Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >2016년 12월 21일 (수) 오전 9:40, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > >> Thanks Manu and Taylor for giving your opinions. >> >> - Storm SQL improvement >> >> There're some huge PRs available but there're all about improvement which >> shouldn't be blocker for releasing 1.1.0. (I'd like to also include them to >> 1.1.0 but not sure it can be happen really soon.) >> I'll send a request for reviewing about pending Storm SQL PRs. >> >> Only one issue (STORM-2200) is linked to release 1.1.0 epic which is >> blocker for me. >> >> - Java port >> >> I also had some developers saying 'If core of Storm were written by Java, >> I could experiment and even contribute on something'. I was one of them, >> and to be honest, I'm still a beginner of Clojure. Moving to Java 8 also >> gives great functionalities for us, so Java port is what I think the most >> important thing among the huge works now in progress. Ideally, and >> hopefully, I'd like to see us focus on this and make this happen at the >> very early next year. >> (Yes we should do some manual tests and maybe some refactoring too.) >> >> - Metrics V2 >> >> I'm not sure when we plan to release Storm 1.2.0, but given that there're >> only two things left (logviewer / ui) for completing port work (except >> tests) I guess Storm 2.0.0 might be happen earlier. >> Taylor, when do you expect metrics V2 will be available for reviewing? >> >> - Stream API >> >> With labeling as experiment or annotating with evolving, we could include >> the first version to next minor excluding 1.1.0. (We could even include >> this to 1.1.0 if we start reviewing this very soon.) >> >> I'd like to hear others' opinions as well. >> >> Thanks, >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >> >> 2016년 12월 21일 (수) 오전 7:33, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>님이 작성: >> >> Hi Jungtaek, >> >> > - Beam runner >> >> There’s not been much activity around this, and I haven’t had much time to >> work on it recently, but there’s a decent foundation to build upon. So it >> would be fairly easy for others to start contributing to that effort. >> There’s also interest from the Beam community in that runner, so one >> possibility is to move that effort to the Apache Beam project. >> >> This is very preliminary work, so I don’t have a good handle on what the >> target release would be. >> >> > - Metrics renewal >> >> >> This is what I’ve been referring to as “metrics_v2”. This is progressing >> fairly well with support for multiple reporters (e.g. Graphite, Ganglia, >> console, etc.), worker metrics, disruptor metrics, etc. >> >> I would like to target this work for 1.2.0. >> >> > - Java port >> >> This effort seems to have picked up (for example Bobby’s conversion of >> Nimbus, etc.) and is progressing steadily. It’s taken a lot longer than >> initially thought, but a lot of that can be attributed to the ebb and flow >> of people’s availability to do the work. >> >> > - Storm SQL improvement (Streaming SQL in future) >> >> You’ve been spearheading most of the work here, so I’d delegate to you for >> your opinion on where it stands. If you need additional reviews, just ask >> on list or via GitHub (e.g. “[REVIEW REQUEST]” in the subject line might >> help get attention). >> >> My thinking has been that this could be included in the 1.1.0 release. Is >> there a set of JIRA issues you would like to include in order to make that >> happen? >> >> > - Stream API >> >> This seems to have stalled a bit, though there seems to be a lot of >> interest around it. I think we all would agree that when introducing a new >> API for building topologies, it’s important that we get right from the >> start and have strong buy-in from the development community. I would >> encourage anyone interested in the Streams API to review the proposal and >> initial code. >> >> I think it is close, but I’m not sure what release to target. Possibly the >> 2.0 release? >> >> Re: 1.1.0 Release >> >> STORM-2176 is a fairly big concern of mine since the feature it involves >> was introduced in 1.0.0 and did not work then nor in any subsequent or >> future releases (may not be a problem in 2.0). Unfortunately, as you’ve >> seen, finding the root cause is elusive. That issue could definitely use >> more eyes. >> >> -Taylor >> >> >> > On Dec 20, 2016, at 2:19 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi devs, >> > >> > I'm seeing lots of huge works in parallel, and we individual are busy >> > regarding each work so common works (review, release, documentation, >> etc.) >> > have been not made in progress for several months. >> > >> > - Beam runner >> > - Metrics renewal >> > - Java port >> > - Storm SQL improvement (Streaming SQL in future) >> > - Stream API >> > >> > IMHO, it would be better to set target versions for them, and set a >> roadmap >> > (per version), and prioritize based on roadmap. >> > >> > Stream API (very first version), and Storm SQL improvement are waiting >> for >> > review, and personally I would like to publish them soon. >> > >> > If we're OK to have 2.0.0 without adding much features, I'm in favor of >> > concentrating Java port work (postponing other things except releasing >> 1.x >> > version line) and moving to Apache Storm 2.0.0 really soon. >> > (I'm even OK we decide to postpone some clojure files to be addressed >> after >> > 2.0.0.) >> > Actually we're suffering other annoying issue: JDK 7 (1.x) vs 8 (2.x) >> which >> > is other reason to move to 2.x quickly. >> > >> > I'd be really happy if we have metrics renewal and beam runner, but I'm >> not >> > sure when they're available to be published. Do we have any updates here? >> > >> > What do you think? It might be ideal, and/or broader discussion but we >> > haven't discussed our plan / vision for a long time so better to give it >> a >> > try. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >> >>
