metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Miklavcic <michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
Date Thu, 02 May 2019 15:50:31 GMT
As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to push
out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with option
2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason why we
think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto
pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear why
we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this,
imho.

On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:

> I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a
> parser aggregation pr honestly.
>
>
> On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ardell@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really
> > help.
> >
> > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something
> > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would
> > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a
> > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ).
> >
> > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves,
> I
> > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then
> release.
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.mail@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new
> > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago
> and
> > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the
> > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the
> commit
> > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself,
> > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do.
> The
> > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more
> time
> > to get it in.
> >
> > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and
> quick
> > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as
> they
> > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we
> > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be
> merged
> > to the master.
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet <justinjleet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for
> 0.8.0.
> > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort.
> > >
> > > The wall of text version:
> > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely
> > > different reasons.
> > >
> > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment
> > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a
> > performance-based
> > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly
> run
> > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be
> > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because
> of
> > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning
> > off
> > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now
> > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and
> > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing
> > anything
> > > here?
> > >
> > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a
> > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be
> > involved
> > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you
> > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This
> > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc
> problem.
> > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create
> > the
> > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs
> on
> > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression
> > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved
> > documentation.
> > >
> > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be
> > resolved
> > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling
> > how
> > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug
> > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a
> > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support
> improving
> > > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the
> > > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the
> > > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI.
> > >
> > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care substantially more
> > about
> > > than this in particular
> > > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, because
> it's
> > > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which has been a
> > major
> > > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly implies
> it's
> > > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on top of
> > > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a clean
> > > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the expectations of
> > > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", something more
> > > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for awhile in
> > general,
> > > and includes larger topics like improving our website, potentially
> > > improving the site book, actually publishing our Javadocs somewhere so
> > > people can develop things easier, publishing out info about Stellar
> > > functions in a better manner, etc.
> > > * The fact that parsers are handled in Ambari at all. It's awful and
> > leads
> > > to situations like this. To the best of my knowledge, once we can do
> > > chaining and aggregation in the Management UI, we should be able to
> > > entirely divorce these two overlapping domains. I'd love to see parsers
> > > ripped out of Ambari, then full-dev manages all the setup via REST. At
> > that
> > > point, we can easily tell everyone to just use the management UI.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:23 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it would help if the full consequences of having the UI show
> > the
> > > > wrong status where listed.
> > > >
> > > > Someone trying metron, will, by default , see the wrong thing in the
> UI
> > > for
> > > > the ONLY sensors they have that are running and doing data.
> > > >
> > > > What happens when they try to start them to make them work? One, two
> or
> > > > all?
> > > > What happens when he edits them or try to add transformations? One,
> two
> > > or
> > > > all?
> > > > What other things can you do with the sensors in the ui? What
> happens?
> > > >
> > > > Are we recommending aggregation on the list and elsewhere for users?
> > Are
> > > > we recommending something that is going to ensure they get into this
> > > > situation?
> > > >
> > > > I think this is more than ‘just the wrong thing shown’ in the ui.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On April 30, 2019 at 20:48:10, Michael Miklavcic (
> > > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The vote for RC1 did not pass and I'd like to kickstart some
> discussion
> > > > about what we should do.
> > > >
> > > > I started taking a look at PR#1360 and it looks like this isn't quite
> > as
> > > > close to being able go in as I had originally expected. I want to
> talk
> > > > about options here. It seems to me that we can:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Wait for PR#1360 to go in, but this is likely going to take more
> > time
> > > > than originally anticipated
> > > > 2. Accept the issue in full dev, but add some notes in the developer
> > > > docs about the current feature gap and why sensors aren't showing
> > status
> > > in
> > > > the management UI when aggregation is enabled.
> > > > 3. Find some other workable UI solution.
> > > > 4. Other option?
> > > >
> > > > All things considered, I'm personally leaning towards #2 in the
> > > short-term,
> > > > but I think we should probably talk about this a bit before deciding
> > what
> > > > RC2 should be.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message