IMHO, storm-yarn and storm-starter, should be brought in first. storm-start is simple, easy to maintain, and servers a good startpoint. storm-yarn is necessary to work with HADOOP2.
With these, the user can immediately have a workable storm cluster on YARN, so it is more basic. Storm connectors like Cassandra, HBase, and etc are also very important, but introducing them in also means complex version dependancy on other products. If there is upgrade on the upper stream, we need to update storm also, I think It will impact the evolution speed of storm itself. It means more effort for developer because now I need to make sure that every checkin will not break the functon of other modules, and if UT fais, we need to solve them. Beside this, which upstream product version to pick? If the built-in version is in-compatible with my production environment, what I can do, should I remove the dependency of storm manually? It not only is about whether we can find the right people to maintain them, it is also about whether storm can be adoptted by multiple and diverse production environments. To help us easier to find the right connector for current storm version, will a clear document work instead of bringing them in? With document, we only need to check and sync at release time, instead of maintaining daily compatibility. Sean On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > I am also happy to help maintain HDFS, HBase, and JMS related modules. > Perhaps it is best to pull in a few of these modules and see how things > go, before we continue the discussion about other more complicated pieces. > > --Bobby > > From: "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com<mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com>> > Reply-To: <user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 4:22 PM > To: <d...@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org > >> > Cc: "user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org>" <user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Pulling "Contrib" Modules into Apache > > I purposely left out storm-starter from the discussion to keep things > focused, and because it's a different animal. But I also feel it should be > pulled in, albeit differently. I was thinking something along the lines of > an "examples" directory, and that all committers would share collective > ownership/responsibility. > > I haven't thought to much yet about the others (storm-yarn, etc.), but I > think that warrants a discussion as well. > > Personally, I'd be willing to sponsor modules for Cassandra, HDFS, HBase, > and JMS. > > I also contacted the author of storm-kafka-0.8-plus, and he is willing to > contribute that work and help with maintenance. > > Regarding the juju charms issue [1], my intent wasn't to shoot it down > entirely (which is why I left it open), but rather make it clear that it's > not a priority at this point in time. I'll admit that it was a bit of a > knee-jerk reaction to the fact that someone from Canonical essentially > spammed a bunch of Apache projects with the same request. It also seemed > not unlike a request for us to maintain .rpm and .deb packages, etc., > which is a path I'd be very hesitant to go down. > > - Taylor > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-240 > > On Feb 26, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com<mailto: > ev...@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote: > > I totally agree and I am +1 on bringing these spout/trident pieces in, > assuming there are committers to support them. > > I am also curious about how people feel about pulling in other projects > like storm-starter, storm-deploy, storm-mesos, and storm-yarn? > > Storm-starter in my option seems more like documentation and it would be > nice to pull in so that it stays up to date with storm itself, just like > the documentation. > > The others are more of ways to run storm in different environments. They > seem like there could be a lot of coupling between them and storm as storm > evolves, and they kind of fit with "integrate storm with *Technology X*" > except X in this case is a compute environment instead of a data source or > store. But then again we also just shot down a request to create juju > charms for storm. > > --Bobby > > From: "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com<mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com > ><mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com>> > Reply-To: <d...@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > d...@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 1:21 PM > To: <d...@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Cc: "user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org>" > <user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Pulling "Contrib" Modules into Apache > > Thanks for the feedback Bobby. > > To clarify, I'm mainly talking about spout/bolt/trident state > implementations that integrate storm with *Technology X*, where *Technology > X* is not a fundamental part of storm. > > Examples would be technologies that are part of or related to the > Hadoop/Big Data ecosystem and enable the Lamda Architecture, e.g.: Kafka, > HDFS, HBase, Cassandra, etc. > > The idea behind having one or more Storm committers act as a "sponsor" is > to make sure new additions are done carefully and with good reason. To add > a new module, it would require committer/PPMC consensus, and assignment of > one or more sponsors. Part of a sponsor's job would be to ensure that a > module is maintained, which would require enough familiarity with the code > so support it long term. If a new module was proposed, but no committers > were willing to act as a sponsor, it would not be added. > > It would be the Committers'/PPMC's responsibly to make sure things didn't > get out of hand, and to do something about it if it does. > > Here's an old Hadoop JIRA thread [1] discussing the addition of Hive as a > contrib module, similar to what happened with HBase as Bobby pointed out. > Some interesting points are brought up. The difference here is that both > HBase and Hive were pretty big codebases relative to Hadoop. With > spout/bolt/state implementations I doubt we'd see anything along that scale. > > - Taylor > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-3601 > > > On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com<mailto: > ev...@yahoo-inc.com><mailto:ev...@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote: > > I can see a lot of value in having a distribution of storm that comes with > batteries included, everything is tested together and you know it works. > But I don't see much long term developer benefit in building them all > together. If there is strong coupling between storm and these external > projects so that they break when storm changes then we need to understand > the coupling and decide if we want to reduce that coupling by stabilizing > APIs, improving version numbering and release process, etc.; or if the > functionality is something that should be offered as a base service in > storm. > > I can see politically the value of giving these other projects a home in > Apache, and making them sub-projects is the simplest route to that. I'd > love to have storm on yarn inside Apache. I just don't want to go > overboard with it. There was a time when HBase was a "contrib" module > under Hadoop along with a lot of other things, and the Apache board came > and told Hadoop to brake it up. > > Bringing storm-kafka into storm does not sound like it will solve much > from a developer's perspective, because there is at least as much coupling > with kafka as there is with storm. I can see how it is a huge amount of > overhead and pain to set up a new project just for a few hundred lines of > code, as such I am in favor of pulling in closely related projects, > especially those that are spouts and state implementations. I just want to > be sure that we do it carefully, with a good reason, and with enough people > who are familiar with the code to support it long term. > > If it starts to look like we are pulling in too many projects perhaps we > should look at something more like the bigtop project > https://bigtop.apache.org/ which produces a tested distribution of Hadoop > with many different sub-projects included in it. > > I am also a bit concerned about these sub-projects becoming second class > citizens, where we break something, but because the build is off by default > we don't know it. I would prefer that they are built and tested by > default. If the build and test time starts to take too long, to me that > means we need to start wondering if we have too many contrib modules. > > --Bobby > > From: Brian Enochson <brian.enoch...@gmail.com<mailto: > brian.enoch...@gmail.com><mailto:brian.enoch...@gmail.com><mailto: > brian.enoch...@gmail.com>> > Reply-To: "user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org>" < > user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 9:50 PM > To: "user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org>" < > user@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:user@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto: > user@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Cc: "d...@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto: > d...@storm.incubator.apache.org>" <d...@storm.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > d...@storm.incubator.apache.org><mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org > ><mailto:d...@storm.incubator.apache.org>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Pulling "Contrib" Modules into Apache > > hi, > I am in agreement with Taylor and believe I understand his intent. An > incredible tool/framework/application like Storm is only enhanced and gains > value from the number of well maintained and vetted modules that can be > used for integration and adding further functionality. > I am relatively new to the Storm community but have spent quite some time > reviewing contributing modules out there, reviewing various duplicates and > running into some version incompatibilities. I understand the need to keep > Storm itself pure, but do think there needs to be some structure and > governance added to the contributing modules. Look at the benefit a tool > like npm brings to the node community. > I like the idea of sponsorship, vetting and a community vote. I, as sure > many would be, am willing to offer support and time to working through how > to set this up and helping with the implementation if it is decided to > pursue some solution. > I hope these views are taken in the sprit they are made, to make this > incredible system even better along with the surrounding eco-system. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:36 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com > <mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com><mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com><mailto: > ptgo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Just to be clear (and play a little Devil's advocate :) ), I'm not > suggesting that whatever a "contrib" project/module/subproject might > become, be a clearinghouse for anything Storm-related. > > I see it as something that is well-vetted by the Storm community, subject > to PPMC review, vote, etc. Entry would require community review, PPMC > review, and in some cases ASF IP clearance/legal review. Anything added > would require some level of commitment from the PPMC/committers to provide > some level of support. > > In other words, nothing "willy-nilly". > > One option could be that any module added require (X > 0) number of > committers to volunteer as "sponsor"s for the module, and commit to > maintaining it. > > That being said, I don't see storm-kafka being any different from anything > else that provides integration points for Storm. > > -Taylor > > > On Feb 25, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Nathan Marz <nat...@nathanmarz.com<mailto: > nat...@nathanmarz.com><mailto:nat...@nathanmarz.com><mailto: > nat...@nathanmarz.com>> wrote: > > I'm only +1 for pulling in storm-kafka and updating it. Other projects put > these contrib modules in a "contrib" folder and keep them managed as > completely separate codebases. As it's not actually a "module" necessary > for Storm, there's an argument there for doing it that way rather than via > the multi-module route. > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milinda Pathirage <mpath...@umail.iu.edu > <mailto:mpath...@umail.iu.edu><mailto:mpath...@umail.iu.edu><mailto: > mpath...@umail.iu.edu>> wrote: > Hi Taylor, > > I'm +1 for pulling these external libraries into Apache codebase. This > will certainly benifit Strom community. I also like to contribute to > this process. > > Thanks > Milinda > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com > <mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com><mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com><mailto: > ptgo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > A while back I opened STORM-206 [1] to capture ideas for pulling in > "contrib" modules to the Apache codebase. > > In the past, we had the storm-contrib github project [2] which subsequently > got broken up into individual projects hosted on the stormprocessor github > group [3] and elsewhere. > > The problem with this approach is that in certain cases it led to code rot > (modules not being updated in step with Storm's API), fragmentation > (multiple similar modules with the same name), and confusion. > > A good example of this is the storm-kafka module [4], since it is a widely > used component. Because storm-contrib wasn't being tagged in github, a lot > of users had trouble reconciling with which versions of storm it was > compatible. Some users built off specific commit hashes, some forked, and a > few even pushed custom builds to repositories such as clojars. With kafka > 0.8 now available, there are two main storm-kafka projects, the original > (compatible with kafka 0.7) and an updated fork [5] (compatible with kafka > 0.8). > > My intention is not to find fault in any way, but rather to point out the > resulting pain, and work toward a better solution. > > I think it would be beneficial to the Storm user community to have certain > commonly used modules like storm-kafka brought into the Apache Storm > project. Another benefit worth considering is the licensing/legal oversight > that the ASF provides, which is important to many users. > > If this is something we want to do, then the big question becomes what sort > governance process needs to be established to ensure that such things are > properly maintained. > > Some random thoughts, questions, etc. that jump to mind include: > > What to call these things: "contib modules", "connectors", "integration > modules", etc.? > Build integration: I imagine they would be a multi-module submodule of the > main maven build. Probably turned off by default and enabled by a maven > profile. > Governance: Have one or more committer volunteers responsible for > maintenance, merging patches, etc.? Proposal process for pulling new > modules? > > > I look forward to hearing others' opinions. > > - Taylor > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-206 > [2] https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm-contrib > [3] https://github.com/stormprocessor > [4] https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm-contrib/tree/master/storm-kafka > [5] https://github.com/wurstmeister/storm-kafka-0.8-plus > > > > -- > Milinda Pathirage > > PhD Student | Research Assistant > School of Informatics and Computing | Data to Insight Center > Indiana University > > twitter: milindalakmal > skype: milinda.pathirage > blog: http://milinda.pathirage.org<http://milinda.pathirage.org/> > > > > -- > Twitter: @nathanmarz > http://nathanmarz.com<http://nathanmarz.com/> > >
