How about, for now, we simply create a page where we gather links/short descriptions of all these contributions and let the maintenance and dependency management to the tool/library creators? This way we will at least have these contributions in one place and link to them somewhere from the website.
-Vasia. On 8 October 2015 at 12:06, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > Thanks for bringing up this idea. Actually, it has been discussed a > couple of times on the mailing list whether we should have a central > place for third-party extensions/contributions/libraries. This could > either be something package-based or, like you proposed, another > repository. > > An external place for contributions raises a couple of questions > > - Which version should the external contributions be based on? > - How do we make sure, the extensions are continuously updated? > (dedicated maintainers or automatic compatibility checks) > - How do we easily plug-in the external modules into Flink? > > In the long term, we really need a solution for these questions. The > code base of Flink is growing and more and more packages go to > flink-contrib/flink-staging. I would find something packaged-based > better than a repository. Quite frankly, momentarily, I think > developing such a plugin system is out of scope for most Flink > developers. At the current pace of Flink development, collecting these > contributions externally without properly maintaining them, doesn't > make much sense to me. > > Cheers, > Max > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > many people are building quite exiting stuff on top of Flink. It is hard > > to keep an good overview on what stuff is available and what not. What > > do you think about starting a second git repository "flink-external" > > that collects all those code? > > > > The ideas would be to collect stuff in a central point, such that people > > can access it easily and get an overview what is already available (this > > might also avoid duplicate development). It might also be a good point > > to show common patterns. In order to collect as much as possible, the > > contributing requirement (with respect to testing etc) could be lower > > than for Flink itself. > > > > For example, I recently started a small flink-clojure module with a > > simple word-count example to answer a question on SO. Including this in > > Flink would not be appropriate. However, for a flink-external repro it > > might be nice to have. > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > -Matthias > > >
