+1 to drop it as nobody seems to be willing to maintain it and it also stands in the way for future developments in Flink.
Cheers, Kostas > On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Tzu-Li Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>
