+1 to drop it. Thanks, Fabian
Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Niels Basjes <ni...@basj.es>: > I would drop it. > > Niels Basjes > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, <k.klou...@data-artisans.com> > wrote: > > > +1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also > > stands in the way for future developments in Flink. > > > > Cheers, > > Kostas > > > > > On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 to drop it. > > > > > > It seems few people use it. Commits history of an experimental > > > module sparse often means that there is low interest. > > > > > > Best, > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > 远远 <zhao137578...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月29日周六 下午2:16写道： > > > > > >> +1， it‘s time to drop it😂 > > >> > > >> Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> 于2018年9月29日周六 > > >> 下午1:53写道： > > >> > > >>> Very agree with to drop it. +1 > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> 发件人：Jeff Carter <jpcarter...@gmail.com> > > >>> 发送时间：2018年9月29日(星期六) 10:18 > > >>> 收件人：dev <d...@flink.apache.org> > > >>> 抄 送：chesnay <ches...@apache.org>; Till Rohrmann < > trohrm...@apache.org > > >; > > >>> user <user@flink.apache.org> > > >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping flink-storm? > > >>> > > >>> +1 to drop it. > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 7:25 PM Hequn Cheng <chenghe...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 to drop it. It seems that few people use it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, Hequn > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM Chesnay Schepler < > ches...@apache.org > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I'm very much in favor of dropping it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Flink has been continually growing in terms of features, and IMO > > we've > > >>>>> reached the point where we should cull some of the more obscure > ones. > > >>> > > >>>>> flink-storm, while interesting from a theoretical standpoint, > offers > > too > > >>>>> little value. > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>> Note that the bolt/spout wrapper parts of the part are still > > compatible, > > >>>>> it's only topologies that aren't working. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> IMO compatibility layers only add value if they ease the migration > to > > >>>>> Flink APIs. > > >>> > > >>>>> * bolt/spout wrappers do this, but they will continue to work even > > if we > > >>>>> drop it > > >>>>> * topologies don't do this, so I'm not interested in then. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 28.09.2018 15:22, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I would like to discuss how to proceed with Flink's storm > > >>>>>> compatibility layer flink-strom. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> While working on removing Flink's legacy mode, I noticed that some > > >>> > > >>>>>> parts of flink-storm rely on the legacy Flink client. In fact, at > > the > > >>> > > >>>>>> moment flink-storm does not work together with Flink's new > > distributed > > >>>>>> architecture. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm also wondering how many people are actually using Flink's > Storm > > >>>>>> compatibility layer and whether it would be worth porting it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I see two options how to proceed: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1) Commit to maintain flink-storm and port it to Flink's new > > >>>> architecture > > >>>>>> 2) Drop flink-storm > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>> I doubt that we can contribute it to Apache Bahir [1], because > once > > we > > >>> > > >>>>>> remove the legacy mode, this module will no longer work with all > > newer > > >>>>>> Flink versions. > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>> Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion on this and in > > particular > > >>>>>> if you are using or planning to use flink-storm in the future. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>> Till > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > >
