falcon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: falcon vs oozie
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:44:52 GMT
Hi Alex,

As we discussed on IRC, Oozie is mostly focus on the job execution: it 
means that it can trigger/schedule the jobs. It will start a job when 
another one is done, or another job in case of failure.

Falcon is more data motion oriented. It means it can trigger a job when 
the data changed (the data coming from another job for instance).

You are right, in order to create a Falcon process, you have to create 
the workflow.xml by hand. But a process can also be a pig process and 
here you don't need the workflow.xml. I proposed to add new kind of 
Falcon processes to avoid to create the workflow.xml by hand.


On 09/09/2014 05:31 PM, Alex Nastetsky wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a general usage question about Falcon. I don't see a "user" mailing
> list, so I am sending it here. If there's a better place to direct the
> question, please let me know.
> I have been looking at the OnBoarding:
> http://falcon.incubator.apache.org/docs/OnBoarding.html
> I understand that Falcon uses Oozie underneath. What is the advantage of
> using Falcon instead of using Oozie directly?
> It looks like you can specify in your Input Feed information about your
> input data, but you can parameterize your paths in Oozie as well (using
> job.properties).
> I have also heard conflicting information about whether Falcon generates
> Oozie workflow.xml files, but in that on-boarding example, it looks like
> you need to create the workflow.xml manually. Which is correct?
> Thanks in advance,
> Alex.

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend - http://www.talend.com

View raw message