flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Behrouz Derakhshan <behrouz.derakhs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Advice on [FLINK-2021]: Rework examples to use new ParameterTool
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:17:57 GMT
Hi Max,

What you said makes sense, for "ParameterTool doesn't seem to support
positional arguments :) but we could fix that." should we create a separate
ticket or should it also be part of FLINK-2021 ?

BR,
Behrouz


On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Maximilian Michels <mxm@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Behrouz,
>
> Thanks for starting the discussion. If I understand your question
> correctly, you are asking if it breaks the training or other external
> material if we convert the Flink examples to make use of the
> ParameterTool?
>
> We could make the changes such that the examples will accept the same
> parameters but use the ParameterTool internally to verify the
> parameters and print usage information. I think most examples simply
> use positional arguments and we could keep it that way. The only
> problem is that the ParameterTool doesn't seem to support positional
> arguments :) but we could fix that.
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Behrouz Derakhshan
> <behrouz.derakhshan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had at look at this ticket FLINK-2021
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2021>, there isn't much to
> do
> > from a technical stand point and it kinda makes sense to use the new
> > "ParameterTool", since it is being used in most of the other part of the
> > code base.
> > The only question is do we really want to do it, since I'm guessing some
> of
> > the training materials, slides and articles are referencing these
> examples
> > and updating those might be a burden.
> >
> > Let me know what you guys think, either I can start working on it or we
> can
> > just resolve it for good.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Behrouz
>

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