I would drop it. Niels Basjes
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, 10:38 Kostas Kloudas, <k.klou...@data-artisans.com> wrote: > +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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >
