Depends how you write the function class, but most likely, yes. Hence global config option.
Simon > On 2 Feb 2018, at 13:42, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]> wrote: > > Does it mean every time the function gets called it will load the config, but > if I use the global one it will only read it one time and it will be > available in memory? > > On 2 Feb. 2018 21:53, "Simon Elliston Ball" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Shouldn’t be. The one this I would point out though is that you don’t > necessarily know which supervisor you will be running from, so pulling from > HDFS would make sense. That said, the performance implications are probably > not great. A good option here would be to have the config available in the > global config for example and refer to that, since most instances of stellar > apply global config to their context. > > Simon > > >> On 2 Feb 2018, at 07:14, Ali Nazemian <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Will be any problem if the Stellar function we want to implement need to >> load an external config file? >> >> Cheers, >> Ali >> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Thanks, All. >> >> Yes, Nick. It is highly related to our use case and the way that we are >> going to enrich events with assets and vulnerability properties. It is not a >> general case at all. >> >> Cheers, >> Ali >> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:43 AM, Matt Foley <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Besides the example code Simon mentioned at >> https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron-stellar/stellar-3rd-party-example >> >> <https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron-stellar/stellar-3rd-party-example> >> , >> there is some documentation at >> http://metron.apache.org/current-book/metron-stellar/stellar-common/3rdPartyStellar.html >> >> <http://metron.apache.org/current-book/metron-stellar/stellar-common/3rdPartyStellar.html> >> >> >> From: Nick Allen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Reply-To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 4:46 AM >> To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: Define a function that can be used in Stellar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If something we have already does not fit the bill, I would recommend >> creating that function in Java. Since you described it as "a bit complex" >> and "the logic would be complicated" I don't see any value in defining >> something like this in Stellar with named functions. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 7:38 AM Simon Elliston Ball >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Have you looked at the recent TLSH functions in Stellar? We already have >> that for similarity preserving hashes. >> >> >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2018, at 12:35, Ali Nazemian <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> It is a bit complex. We want to create a function that accepts a list of >> arguments for an asset and generate an asset identifier that can be used as >> a row_key for the enrichment store. The logic would be complicated, though. >> We may need to include some sort of similarity aware hash function as a part >> of this custom function. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Nick Allen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Ali - Can you describe the logic that you are trying to perform? That would >> be useful as a use case to help drive a discussion around creating named >> functions in Stellar. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Ali Nazemian <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Simon. We have already got a script to deal with classpath >> management for the parsers. We should be able to use it for this extension >> as well. >> >> >> >> Yeah, I agree. It will be much easier to define functions on the fly and use >> them afterwards. It could be defined as Lambda or custom function. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Simon Elliston Ball >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron-stellar/stellar-3rd-party-example >> >> <https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron-stellar/stellar-3rd-party-example> >> gives good details on how to add a stellar function. >> >> >> >> Stellar will pick up an annotated function on its class path, so to add >> function there is no need to rebuild metron module, but you do need your >> modules on the classpath, and, pending 777, to deal with things like class >> path clash in your dependencies. >> >> >> >> Another idea worth discussion on the dev list is probably the notion of >> defining stellar functions in stellar, which would be a much simpler >> solution than custom java functions if you can already express you logic in >> stellar. >> >> >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2018, at 10:37, Ali Nazemian <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> >> >> Yes, that is exactly what we are looking for. Is there any example regarding >> adding a Stellar function in Java? Hopefully, we don't need to rebuild the >> corresponding modules for this? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Simon Elliston Ball >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> At present you can certainly create custom stellar functions in Java. I’m >> guessing however that what you’re looking to do is create a kind of function >> that combines a number of stellar functions to avoid repetition, or to >> ensure consistency of certain parameters for example. Is that what you’re >> looking for? Maybe some sort of syntax to create a named stellar function >> similar to the way we create lambdas? >> >> Simon >> >> >> > On 17 Jan 2018, at 07:25, Ali Nazemian <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Is there any way that we can define a function that can be used rather >> > than duplicating a logic multiple times? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Ali >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> A.Nazemian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> A.Nazemian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> A.Nazemian >> >> >> >> >> -- >> A.Nazemian >> >> >> >> -- >> A.Nazemian >
