Yes, let's do it this way. The wrapper classes are probably not too complex and can be easily tested. We have the same for the Hadoop interfaces, although I think only the Input- and OutputFormatWrappers are actually used.
Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 09:46 Uhr schrieb Chesnay Schepler < ches...@apache.org>: > That sounds very good to me. > > On 08.10.2018 11:36, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > Good point. The initial idea of this thread was to remove the storm > > compatibility layer completely. > > > > During the discussion I realized that it might be useful for our users > > to not completely remove it in one go. Instead for those who still > > want to use some Bolt and Spout code in Flink, it could be nice to > > keep the wrappers. At least, we could remove flink-storm in a more > > graceful way by first removing the Topology and client parts and then > > the wrappers. What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:13 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org > > <mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > I don't believe that to be the consensus. For starters it is > > contradictory; we can't /drop /flink-storm yet still /keep //some > > parts/. > > > > From my understanding we drop flink-storm completely, and put a > > note in the docs that the bolt/spout wrappers of previous versions > > will continue to work. > > > > On 08.10.2018 11:04, Till Rohrmann wrote: > >> Thanks for opening the issue Chesnay. I think the overall > >> consensus is to drop flink-storm and only keep the Bolt and Spout > >> wrappers. Thanks for your feedback! > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Till > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:37 AM Chesnay Schepler > >> <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> > >> I've created > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10509 for > >> removing flink-storm. > >> > >> 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 > >> > > >> > > > >
