The back-and-forth on the Source interface was unfortunate, yes.
In general, I think, that we should not doctor around on other
peoples's pull requests in semi secrecy. Some small cosmetic fixes or
rewordings of the commit message are OK. But if the PR needs rework
then this should be voiced in th
Yes, this is indeed a big change, but it was openly discussed multiple
times here on the mailing list and in a number of PRs. I am pretty sure
that we do not want to break the source interface any more, but there is
still some open discussion on it. Let us keep an eye on PR 742 where it is
currentl
Thanks for the info.
I am just a little bit "disappointed". The whole rewrite to the new
interface was unnecessary... We need to "revert" everything again...
I can also stop working on the new StormSpoutWrapper and
StormSpoutCollector implementation in this case...
Let's see how it goes. But from
Thanks for the updates, Matthias.
Both of your questions get an other context, because we have decided to go
back to the run()/cancel() type of source interface - but with a slightly
changed signature to enable "transactional" operator state checkpointing.
You can check out the new source interfac
I just pushed my changes to Marton's "storm" branch.
It is still open how to process with the following (please give feedback):
StormSpoutWrapper:
- do we still need "isRunning" and "cancel()"? The new API should make
them obsolete from my point of view.
- I would avoid "busy wait" in "next()"
-- Forwarded message --
From: Szabó Péter
Date: 2015-06-03 15:31 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Discussion: Storm Comparability Layer
To: Márton Balassi
Hey, Matthias,
Of course, you can remove my last commit. I just wanted to remove the
failing tests, and some unnecessary comments. Pl
