Dear Pulsar community members,

PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to separate
repositories" was created in April 2020. The repositories for
pulsar-connectors, pulsar-adapters and pulsar-sql were created about a year
ago [2].

What is the current roadmap for completing PIP-62 and moving
pulsar-connectors and pulsar-sql out of apache/pulsar repository?

BR,

Lari

[1]
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories
[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9e6ec742e2896da1f0ce7d4adc7cb84fc6db6dbf797732ccdd50fb86%40%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E

Other email threads:
* [Discuss] Don't include presto/trino in the normal Pulsar distribution -
https://lists.apache.org/thread/jn96tct54mn0tvdot62vdslrvs38fm6d
* Updates on Presto connector for PIP-62 -
https://lists.apache.org/thread/f9n6sc2mrboq5sxhjbr7gvdl8vqp9fpk

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:59 PM Nicolò Boschi <boschi1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Resurrecting this thread.
>
> 2.9 is almost released and it hasn't been merged yet
>
> Extending the discussion to other connectors, it looks like there has been
> no progress on PIP-62.
> My concern is that a lot of Pulsar IO connectors dependencies we are
> running are obsolete with several security reports
>
> I see there are interesting comments in the issue (
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10219) and Sijie exported the
> pulsar-io dir to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors but it's
> outdated
>
> From my point of view, we have to:
> - reimport all the connectors source codes with newest ones (including
> integration tests)
> - add periodic CI jobs for connectors to run against master, 2.9-latest,
> 2.8-latest, 2.7-latest to verify breaking changes
> - define a release cycle/management for connectors (we should improve the
> PIP doc). IMO it's not clear if each connector will have its own release
> versions and how we'll handle it (git tags, artifacts deployment..)
> - update pulsar release script in order to get the connectors artifacts
> (retrieving the .nar or building it from source?)
> - update docs
> - remove pulsar-io dir from Pulsar repo
>
> It's the perfect timing to schedule this work for 2.10
>
> What is missing? How's the situation? Is there a roadblock I haven't seen?
> I think it's better to take another discussion for Presto since it will
> come to another end
>
>
> Il giorno sab 14 ago 2021 alle ore 15:21 Enrico Olivelli <
> eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Sijie
> >
> > Il Ven 13 Ago 2021, 22:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > You can follow the progress at
> > https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer
> >
> > >
> > > The original code doesn't conform to TrinoDB's standard. Marvin is
> > > actively following up on that.
> > >
> > > Our goal is still to get this completed as part of the 2.9 release.
> > >
> >
> > Wonderful
> >
> > Thanks
> > Enrico
> >
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:04 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > How is the Presto work going ?
> > > > IIRC the plan was to remove it from the Pulsar code base and let it
> be
> > > > hosted at Trino.
> > > >
> > > > If this is not going to happen within the 2.9.0 release timeline
> > > > (September?) I would prefer to upgrade to "Trino".
> > > > Probably we will have a downside problem that recent versions of
> > > > Presto/Trino do not work on JDK8 but only on JDK11.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that in that case we could open a separate thread to say
> that
> > > > Pulsar SQL in 2.9.0 will work only on JDK11.
> > > > In Pulsar 2.8.0 we added official compatibility with JDK11 (and it is
> > the
> > > > preferred version, as it is the version used in the Docker images),
> so
> > > > requiring JDK11 for Pulsar SQL 2.9.0 does not sound bad to me.
> > > >
> > > > My primary concern is that the version of Presto that we are running
> is
> > > > obsolete and there are several security reports against it or its
> third
> > > > party dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts ?
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolò Boschi
>

Reply via email to