Can you please share the complete logs with me? Uce at apache org ;)
On Saturday, 14 November 2015, Gyula Fóra wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have a Flink Streaming job running for about a day now without any errors
> and then I got this in the job manager log:
>
> 15:37:49,905 WARN io.netty.channel.D
I would be against adding anything Storm-specific in the core (streaming is
core as well) Flink APIs. If we add stuff there we have to stick to it and I
don’t see a lot of use for reusing single Bolts/Spouts.
I’m very excited about the work on Storm compatibility in general, though. :D
> On 14
Hi Fabian -
Great work. I've entered (and am still entering) a handful of "grammar"
comments that are purely optional; use as you see fit.
One non-grammar comment comes near the end and that has to do with a list of
breaking API changes - can you point at such a list to make it simpler to
identi
Hi guys,
I have a Flink Streaming job running for about a day now without any errors
and then I got this in the job manager log:
15:37:49,905 WARN io.netty.channel.DefaultChannelPipeline
- An exceptionCaught() event was fired, and it reached at
the tail of the pipeline. It usually mean
About DataStream extension and setting storm dependency to provided. If
this works, a big +1 from my side.
-Matthias
On 11/14/2015 05:13 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> I just had a look at your proposal. It makes a lot of sense. I still
> believe that it is a matter of taste if one prefers your or
I just had a look at your proposal. It makes a lot of sense. I still
believe that it is a matter of taste if one prefers your or my point of
view. Both approaches allows to easily reuse and execute Storm
Topologies on Flink (what is the most important feature we need to have).
I hope to get some m
