+1 for dropping it
> On 1. Oct 2018, at 10:55, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
