+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 <dev@flink.apache.org> >> 抄 送：chesnay <ches...@apache.org>; Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>; >> user <u...@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 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>
