flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Fixing the ExecutionConfig
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:37:58 GMT
IMHO it’s not possible to have streaming/batch specific ExecutionConfig since the user functions
share a common interface, i.e. getRuntimeContext().getExecutionConfig() simply returns the
same type for both.

What could be done is to migrate batch/streaming specific stuff to the ExecutionEnvironment
and keep the ExecutionConfig strictly for stuff that applies to both execution modes.
> On 12 Nov 2015, at 11:35, Maximilian Michels <mxm@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for separating concerns by having a StreamExecutionConfig and a
> BatchExecutionConfig with inheritance from ExecutionConfig for general
> options. Not sure about the pre-flight and runtime options. I think
> they are ok in one config.
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wrote:
>> I think now (before the 1.0 release) is the right time to clean it up.
>> Are you suggesting to have two execution configs for batch and streaming?
>> I'm not sure if we need to distinguish between pre-flight and runtime
>> options: From a user's perspective, it doesn't matter. For example the
>> serializer settings are evaluated during pre-flight but they have a impact
>> during execution.
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>> The ExecutionConfig is a bit of a strange thing right now. It looks like it
>>> became the place where everyone just put the stuff they want to somehow
>>> push from the client to runtime, plus a random assortment of conflig flags.
>>> As a result:
>>>  - The ExecutionConfig is available in batch and streaming, but has a
>>> number of fields that are very streaming specific, like the watermark
>>> interval, etc.
>>>  - Several fields that are purely pre-flight time relevant are in there,
>>> like whether to use the closure cleaner, or whether to force Avro or Kryo
>>> serializers for POJOs.
>>> Any interest in cleaning this up? Because these messy classes simply grow
>>> ever more messy unless we establish a proper definition of what its
>>> concerns and non-concerns are...
>>> Greetings,
>>> Stephan

View raw message