+1 to drop as well. On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 to drop. > > I totally agree with your reasoning. I like that we tried to keep it, > but I don't think the maintenance overhead would be justified. > > – Ufuk > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:09 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10571, we will remove > the > > Storm topologies from Flink and keep the wrappers for the moment. > > > > However, looking at the FlinkTopologyContext [1], it becomes quite > obvious > > that Flink's compatibility with Storm is really limited. Almost all of > the > > context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these > > wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having > > them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using > > them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our > > maintenance burden in the future. What do you think? > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, let's do it this way. > > > The wrapper classes are probably not too complex and can be easily > tested. > > > We have the same for the Hadoop interfaces, although I think only the > > > Input- and OutputFormatWrappers are actually used. > > > > > > > > > Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 09:46 Uhr schrieb Chesnay Schepler < > > > ches...@apache.org>: > > > > > >> That sounds very good to me. > > >> > > >> On 08.10.2018 11:36, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > >> > Good point. The initial idea of this thread was to remove the storm > > >> > compatibility layer completely. > > >> > > > >> > During the discussion I realized that it might be useful for our > users > > >> > to not completely remove it in one go. Instead for those who still > > >> > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to > > >> > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more > > >> > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and > then > > >> > the wrappers. What do you think? > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > Till > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler < > ches...@apache.org > > >> > <mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I don't believe that to be the consensus. For starters it is > > >> > contradictory; we can't /drop /flink-storm yet still /keep > //some > > >> > parts/. > > >> > > > >> > From my understanding we drop flink-storm completely, and put a > > >> > note in the docs that the bolt/spout wrappers of previous > versions > > >> > will continue to work. > > >> > > > >> > On 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > >> >> Thanks for opening the issue Chesnay. I think the overall > > >> >> consensus is to drop flink-storm and only keep the Bolt and > Spout > > >> >> wrappers. Thanks for your feedback! > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> Till > > >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:37 AM Chesnay Schepler > > >> >> <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> I've created > > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10509 for > > >> >> removing flink-storm. > > >> >> > > >> >> 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 > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
