+1 from my side as well. I would assume that most Bolts that are supported by our current wrappers can be easily converted into respective Flink functions.
Fabian Am Do., 10. Jan. 2019 um 10:35 Uhr schrieb Kostas Kloudas < k.klou...@da-platform.com>: > +1 to drop as well. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 to drop. >> >> I totally agree with your reasoning. I like that we tried to keep it, >> but I don't think the maintenance overhead would be justified. >> >> – Ufuk >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:09 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10571, we will remove >> the >> > Storm topologies from Flink and keep the wrappers for the moment. >> > >> > However, looking at the FlinkTopologyContext [1], it becomes quite >> obvious >> > that Flink's compatibility with Storm is really limited. Almost all of >> the >> > context methods are not supported which makes me wonder how useful these >> > wrappers really are. Given the additional maintenance overhead of having >> > them in the code base and no indication that someone is actively using >> > them, I would still be in favour of removing them. This will reduce our >> > maintenance burden in the future. What do you think? >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/FlinkTopologyContext.java >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Till >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:08 AM Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >
