Hello, So the proposal is to keep the current RMQSource constructors / public api as is and create new ones that gives more granular parsing ?
Regards, Karim Mansour On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 5:23 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards < aus...@fintechstudios.com> wrote: > Hey all + thanks Konstantin, > > Like mentioned, we also run into issues with the RMQ Source inflexibility. > I think Aljoscha's idea of supporting both would be a nice way to > incorporate new changes without breaking the current API. > > We'd definitely benefit from the changes proposed here but have another > issue with the Correlation ID. When a message gets in the queue without a > correlation ID, the source errors and the job cannot recover, requiring > (painful) manual intervention. It would be nice to be able to dead-letter > these inputs from the source, but I don't think that's possible with the > current source interface (don't know too much about the source specifics). > We might be able to work around this with a custom Correlation ID > extractor, as proposed by Karim. > > Also, if there are other tickets in the RMQ integrations that have gone > unmaintained, I'm also happy to chip it at maintaining them! > > Best, > Austin > ________________________________ > From: Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:14 AM > To: dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > Cc: Austin Cawley-Edwards <aus...@fintechstudios.com> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] flink-connector-rabbitmq api changes > > Hi everyone, > > just looping in Austin as he mentioned that they also ran into issues due > to the inflexibility of the RabiitMQSourcce to me yesterday. > > Cheers, > > Konstantin > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:23 AM seneg...@gmail.com<mailto: > seneg...@gmail.com> <seneg...@gmail.com<mailto:seneg...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hello Guys, > > Thanks for all the responses, i want to stress out that i didn't feel > ignored i just thought that i forgot an important step or something. > > Since i am a newbie i would follow whatever route you guys would suggest :) > and i agree that the RMQ connector needs a lot of love still "which i would > be happy to submit gradually" > > as for the code i have it here in the PR: > https://github.com/senegalo/flink/pull/1 it's not that much of a change in > terms of logic but more of what is exposed. > > Let me know how you want me to proceed. > > Thanks again, > Karim Mansour > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:40 AM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org > <mailto:aljos...@apache.org>> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think it's good to contribute the changes to Flink directly since we > > already have the RMQ connector in the respository. > > > > I would propose something similar to the Kafka connector, which takes > > both the generic DeserializationSchema and a KafkaDeserializationSchema > > that is specific to Kafka and allows access to the ConsumerRecord and > > therefore all the Kafka features. What do you think about that? > > > > Best, > > Aljoscha > > > > On 30.04.20 10:26, Robert Metzger wrote: > > > Hey Karim, > > > > > > I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience contributing to Flink, > even > > > though you are nicely following the rules. > > > > > > You mentioned that you've implemented the proposed change already. > Could > > > you share a link to a branch here so that we can take a look? I can > > assess > > > the API changes easier if I see them :) > > > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:09 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < > dwysakow...@apache.org<mailto:dwysakow...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Karim, > > >> > > >> Sorry you did not have the best first time experience. You certainly > did > > >> everything right which I definitely appreciate. > > >> > > >> The problem in that particular case, as I see it, is that RabbitMQ is > > >> not very actively maintained and therefore it is not easy too find a > > >> committer willing to take on this topic. The point of connectors not > > >> being properly maintained was raised a few times in the past on the > ML. > > >> One of the ideas how to improve the situation there was to start a > > >> https://flink-packages.org/ page. The idea is to ask active users of > > >> certain connectors to maintain those connectors outside of the core > > >> project, while giving them a platform within the community where they > > >> can make their modules visible. That way it is possible to overcome > the > > >> lack of capabilities within the core committers without loosing much > on > > >> the visibility. > > >> > > >> I would kindly ask you to consider that path, if you are interested. > You > > >> can of course also wait/reach out to more committers if you feel > strong > > >> about contributing those changes back to the Flink repository itself. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Dawid > > >> > > >> On 30/04/2020 07:29, seneg...@gmail.com<mailto:seneg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> Hello, > > >>> > > >>> I am new to the mailing list and to contributing in Big opensource > > >> projects > > >>> in general and i don't know if i did something wrong or should be > more > > >>> patient :) > > >>> > > >>> I put a topic for discussion as per the contribution guide " > > >>> https://flink.apache.org/contributing/how-to-contribute.html"; > almost a > > >> week > > >>> ago and since what i propose is not backward compatible it needs to > be > > >>> discussed here before opening a ticket and moving forward. > > >>> > > >>> So my question is. Will someone pick the discussion up ? or at least > > >>> someone would say that this is not the way to go ? or should i assume > > >> from > > >>> the silence that it's not important / relevant to the project ? > Should > > i > > >>> track the author of the connector and send him directly ? > > >>> > > >>> Thank you for your time. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Karim Mansour > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:17 AM seneg...@gmail.com<mailto: > seneg...@gmail.com> < > > seneg...@gmail.com<mailto:seneg...@gmail.com>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Dear All, > > >>>> > > >>>> I want to propose a change to the current RabbitMQ connector. > > >>>> > > >>>> Currently the RMQSource is extracting the body of the message which > > is a > > >>>> byte array and pass it to a an instance of a user implementation of > > the > > >>>> DeserializationSchema class to deserialize the body of the message. > It > > >>>> also uses the correlation id from the message properties to > > deduplicate > > >> the > > >>>> message. > > >>>> > > >>>> What i want to propose is instead of taking a implementation of a > > >>>> DeserializationSchema in the RMQSource constructor, actually have > the > > >>>> user implement an interface that would have methods both the output > > for > > >> the > > >>>> RMQSource and the correlation id used not only from the body of the > > >> message > > >>>> but also to it's metadata and properties thus giving the connector > > much > > >>>> more power and flexibility. > > >>>> > > >>>> This of course would mean a breaking API change for the RMQSource > > since > > >> it > > >>>> will no longer take a DeserializationSchema but an implementation > of a > > >>>> predefined interface that has the methods to extract both the output > > of > > >> the > > >>>> RMQSource and the to extract the unique message id as well. > > >>>> > > >>>> The reason behind that is that in my company we were relaying on > > another > > >>>> property the message id for deduplication of the messages and i also > > >> needed > > >>>> that information further down the pipeline and there was absolutely > no > > >> way > > >>>> of getting it other than modifying the RMQSource. > > >>>> > > >>>> I already have code written but as the rules dictates i have to run > it > > >> by > > >>>> you guys first before i attempt to create a Jira ticket :) > > >>>> > > >>>> Let me know what you think. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> Karim Mansour > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Konstantin Knauf > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > https://github.com/knaufk >
