[DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
Locked
12
12
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
 
|
Hi Timo, Becket
From the options that Timo suggested for improving the mutability situation I would prefer option a) as this is the more explicit option and simpler option. Just as a remark, I think in general Configurable types for options will be rather very rare for some special use-cases, as the majority of options are rather simpler parameters of primitive types (+duration, memory) @Becket for the toConfiguration this is required for shipping the Configuration to TaskManager, so that we do not have to use java serializability. Best, Dawid On 02/09/2019 10:05, Timo Walther wrote: > Hi Becket, > > Re 1 & 3: "values in configurations should actually be immutable" > > I would also prefer immutability but most of our configuration is > mutable due to serialization/deserialization. Also maps and list could > be mutable in theory. It is difficult to really enforce that for > nested structures. I see two options: > > a) For the original design: How about we force implementers to add a > duplicate() method in a Configurable object? This would mean that the > object is still mutable but by duplicating the object both during > reading and writing we would avoid the problem you described. > > b) For the current design: We still use the factory approach but let a > Configurable object implement a getFactory() method such that we know > how to serialize the object. With the help of a factory we can also > duplicate the object easily during reading and writing and ensure > immutability. > > I would personally go for approach a) to not over-engineer this topic. > But I'm open for option b). > > Regards, > Timo > > > On 31.08.19 04:09, Becket Qin wrote: >> Hi Timo, >> >> Thanks for the reply. I am still a little concerned over the >> mutability of >> the Configurable which could be the value in Configuration. >> >> Re: 1 >> >>> But in general, people should not use any internal fields. >>> Configurable objects are meant for simple little helper POJOs, not >>> complex arbitrary nested data structures. >> This seems difficult to enforce... Ideally the values in configurations >> should actually be immutable. The value can only be changed by >> explicitly >> calling setters in Configuration. Otherwise we may have weird situation >> where the Configurable in the same configuration are different in two >> places because the configurable is modified in one places and not >> modified >> in another place. So I am a little concerned on putting a >> Configurable type >> in the Configuration map, because the value could be modified without >> explicitly setting the configuration. For example, can users do the >> following? >> >> Configurable configurable = >> configuration.getConfigurable(myConfigurableOption); >> configurable.setConfigA(123); // this already changes the configurable >> object in the configuration. >> >> Re: 2 >> Thanks for confirming. As long as users will not have a situation where >> they need to set two configurations with the same key but different >> descriptions, I think it is OK. >> >> Re: 3 >> This is actually kind of related to 1. i.e. Whether toConfiguration() >> guarantees the exact same object can be rebuilt from the >> configuration or >> not. I am still not quite sure about the use case of toConfiguration() >> though. It seems indicating the Configurable is mutable, which might be >> dangerous. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:04 PM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Becket, >>> >>> 1. First of all, you are totally right. The FLIP contains a bug due to >>> the last minute changes that Dawid suggested: by having immutable >>> objects created by a factory we loose the serializability of the >>> Configuration because the factory itself is not stored in the >>> Configuration. I would propose to revert the last change and stick to >>> the original design, which means that a object must implement the >>> Configurable interface and also implements >>> serialization/deserialization >>> methods such that also internal fields can be persisted as you >>> suggested. But in general, people should not use any internal fields. >>> Configurable objects are meant for simple little helper POJOs, not >>> complex arbitrary nested data structures. >>> >>> It is Map<String, Object> because Configuration stores the raw objects. >>> If you put a Boolean option into it, it remains Boolean. This makes the >>> map very efficient for shipping to the cluster and accessing options >>> multiple times. The same for configurable objects. We put the pure >>> objects into the map without any serialization/deserialization. The >>> provided factory allows to convert the Object into a Configuration and >>> we know how to serialize/deserializise a configuration because it is >>> just a key/value map. >>> >>> 2. Yes, this is what we had in mind. It should still be the same >>> configuration option. We would like to avoid specialized option keys >>> across components (exec.max-para and table.exec.max-para) if they are >>> describing basically the same thing. But adding some more description >>> like "TableOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM with description_1 + description_2" >>> does not hurt. >>> >>> 3. They should restore the original object given that the >>> toConfiguration/fromConfiguration methods have been implemented >>> correctly. I will extend the example to make the logic clearer while >>> fixing the bug. >>> >>> Thanks for the healthy discussion, >>> Timo >>> >>> >>> On 30.08.19 15:29, Becket Qin wrote: >>>> Hi Timo, >>>> >>>> Thanks again for the clarification. Please see a few more questions >>> below. >>>> Re: 1 >>>> >>>>> Please also keep in mind that Configuration must not consist of only >>>>> strings, it manages a Map<String, Object> for efficient access. Every >>>>> map entry can have a string representation for persistence, but in >>>>> most >>>>> cases consists of unserialized objects. >>>> I'd like to understand this a bit more. The reason we have a >>>> Map<String, >>>> Object> in Configuration was because that Object could be either a >>> String, >>>> a List or a Map, right? But they eventually always boil down to >>>> Strings, >>> or >>>> maybe one of the predefined type that we know how to serialize. In the >>>> current design, can the Object also be Configurable? >>>> If the value in the config Map<String, Object> can be Configurable >>> objects, >>>> how do we serialize them? Calling toConfiguration() seems not quite >>> working >>>> because there might be some other internal fields that are not part of >>> the >>>> configuration. The modification to those fields will be lost if we >>>> simply >>>> use toConfiguration(). So the impact of modifying those Configurable >>>> objects seems a little undefined. And it would be difficult to prevent >>>> users from doing that. >>>> If the value in the config Map<String, Object> cannot be Configurable >>>> objects, then it seems a little weird to have all the other ConfigType >>>> stored in the ConfigMap in their own native type and accessed via >>>> getInteger() / getBoolean(), etc, while having ConfigurableType to be >>>> different from others because one have to use ConfigurableFactory >>>> to get >>>> the configurations. >>>> >>>> Re: 2 >>>> >>>>> I think about the withExtendedDescription as a helper getter in a >>>>> different place, so that the option is easier to find in a different >>>>> module from it was defined. >>>>> The MAX_PARALLELISM option in TableOptions would conceptually be >>>>> equal >>> to: >>>>> public ConfigOption getMaxParallelismOption() { >>>>> return CoreOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM; >>>>> } >>>> Just to make sure I understand it correctly, does that mean users will >>> see >>>> something like following? >>>> - CoreOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM with description_1; >>>> - TableOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM with description_1 + description_2. >>>> - DataStreamOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM with description_1 + >>>> description_3. >>>> And users will only configure exactly one MAX_PARALLELISM cross the >>> board. >>>> So they won't be confused by setting two MAX_PARALLELISM config for >>>> two >>>> different modules, while they are actually the same config. If that is >>> the >>>> case, I don't have further concern. >>>> >>>> Re: 3 >>>> Maybe I am thinking too much. I thought toBytes() / fromBytes() >>>> actually >>>> restore the original Object. But fromConfiguration() and >>> toConfiguration() >>>> does not do that, anything not in the configuration of the original >>> object >>>> will be lost. So it would be good to make that clear. Maybe a clear >>>> Java >>>> doc is sufficient. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 4:08 PM Dawid Wysakowicz >>>> <[hidden email] >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Ad. 1 >>>>> >>>>> The advantage of our approach is that you have the type definition >>>>> close >>>>> to the option definition. The only difference is that it enables >>>>> expressing simple pojos with the primitives like >>>>> ConfigOption<Integer>, >>>>> ConfigOption<Long> etc. Otherwise as Timo said you will start having >>>>> >>>>> the parsing logic scattered everywhere in the code base as it is now. >>>>> The string representation in our proposal is exactly the same as you >>>>> explained for those three options. The only difference is that you >>>>> don't >>>>> have to parse the elements of a List, Map etc. afterwards. >>>>> >>>>> Ad. 2 >>>>> >>>>> I think about the withExtendedDescription as a helper getter in a >>>>> different place, so that the option is easier to find in a different >>>>> module from it was defined. >>>>> >>>>> The MAX_PARALLELISM option in TableOptions would conceptually be >>>>> equal >>> to: >>>>> public ConfigOption getMaxParallelismOption() { >>>>> >>>>> return CoreOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM; >>>>> >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> This allows to further clarify the description of the option in the >>>>> context of a different module and end up in a seperate page in >>>>> documentation (but with a link to the original one). In the end it is >>>>> exactly the same option. It has exactly same key, type, parsing >>>>> logic, >>>>> it is in the end forwarded to the same place. >>>>> >>>>> Ad. 3 >>>>> >>>>> Not sure if I understand your concerns here. As Timo said it is in >>>>> the >>>>> end sth similar to toBytes/fromBytes, but it puts itself to a >>>>> Configuration. Also just wanted to make sure we adjusted this part >>>>> slightly and now the ConfigOption takes ConfigurableFactory. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Dawid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 30/08/2019 09:39, Timo Walther wrote: >>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. ConfigOptions in their current design are bound to classes. >>>>>> Regarding, the option is "creating some Configurable objects instead >>>>>> of defining the config to create >>>>>> those Configurable"? We just moved this logic to a factory, this >>>>>> factory can then also be used for other purposes. However, how the >>>>>> option and objects are serialized to Configuration is still not part >>>>>> of the option. The option is just pure declaration. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we would allow only List<String>, implementers would need to >>>>>> start >>>>>> implementing own parsing and validation logic all the time. We would >>>>>> like to avoid that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please also keep in mind that Configuration must not consist of only >>>>>> strings, it manages a Map<String, Object> for efficient access. >>>>>> Every >>>>>> map entry can have a string representation for persistence, but in >>>>>> most cases consists of unserialized objects. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. MAX_PARALLELISM is still defined just once. We don't overwrite >>>>>> keys, types or default values. But different layers might want to >>>>>> add >>>>>> helpful information. In our concrete use case for FLIP-59, >>>>>> ExecutionConfig has 50 properties and many of them are not relevant >>>>>> for the Table layer or have no effect at all. We would like to list >>>>>> and mention the most important config options again in the Table >>>>>> Configuration section, so that users are not confused, but with a >>>>>> strong link to the core option. E.g.: registered kryo serializers >>>>>> are >>>>>> also important also for Table users, we would like to add the >>>>>> comment >>>>>> "This option allows to modify the serialization of the ANY SQL data >>>>>> type.". I think we should not spam the core configuration page with >>>>>> comments from all layers, connectors, or libraries but keep this in >>>>>> the corresponding component documentation. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. But it is something like fromBytes() and toBytes()? It serializes >>>>>> and deserializes T from a configuration? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Timo >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29.08.19 19:14, Becket Qin wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Timo and Stephan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the detail explanation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. I agree that each config should be in a human readable >>>>>>> format. My >>>>>>> concern is that the current List<Configurable> looks going a little >>>>>>> too far >>>>>>> from what the configuration is supposed to do. They are essentially >>>>>>> creating some Configurable objects instead of defining the >>>>>>> config to >>>>>>> create >>>>>>> those Configurable. This mixes ConfigOption and the usage of it. >>>>>>> API >>>>>>> wise >>>>>>> it would be good to keep the configs and their usages (such as >>>>>>> how to >>>>>>> create objects using the ConfigOption) apart from each other. >>>>>>> I am wondering if we can just make List also only take string. For >>>>>>> example, >>>>>>> is the following definition of map and list sufficient? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A MapConfigOption is ConfigOption<Map<String, String>>. It can be >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>> as: >>>>>>> map_config_name: k1=v1, k2=v2, k3=v3, ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A ListConfigOption is ConfigOption<List<String>>. It can be defined >>> as: >>>>>>> list_config_name: v1, v2, v3, ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A ListOfMapConfigOption is ConfigOption<List<Map<String, >>>>>>> String>>. It >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> be defined as: >>>>>>> list_of_map_config_name: k1=v1, k2=v2; k3=v3, k4=v4;.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the key and values in the configuration are String. This also >>>>>>> guarantees that the configuration is always serializable. >>>>>>> If we want to do one more step, we can allow the ConfigOption to >>>>>>> set >>> all >>>>>>> the primitive types and parse that for the users. So something like >>>>>>> List<Integer>, List<Class<?>> seems fine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The configuration class could also have util methods to create a >>>>>>> list >>> of >>>>>>> configurable such as: >>>>>>> <T> List<T> >>> <Configuration#getConfigurableInstances(ListMapConfigOption, >>>>>>> Class<T> clazz). >>>>>>> But the configuration class will not take arbitrary Configurable as >>> the >>>>>>> value of its config. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. I might have misunderstood this. But my concern on the >>>>>>> description >>>>>>> extension is in the following example. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> public static final ConfigOption<Integer> MAX_PARALLELISM = >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CoreOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM.withExtendedDescription( >>>>>>> "Note: That this property means that a table program has a >>>>>>> side-effect >>>>>>> XYZ."); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case, we will have two MAX_PARALLELISM configs now. One is >>>>>>> CoreOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM. The other one is defined here. I >>>>>>> suppose >>>>>>> users >>>>>>> will see both configurations. One with an extended description >>>>>>> and one >>>>>>> without. Let's say there is a third component which also users >>>>>>> MAX_PARALLELISM, will there be yet another MAX_PARALLELISM >>>>>>> ConfigOption? If >>>>>>> so, what would that ConfigOption's description look like? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ideally, we would want to have just one CoreOptions.MAX_PARALLELISM >>>>>>> and the >>>>>>> description should clearly state all the usage of this >>>>>>> ConfigOption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. I see, in that case, how about we name it something like >>>>>>> extractConfiguration()? I am just trying to see if we can make it >>> clear >>>>>>> this is not something like fromBytes() and toBytes(). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:09 PM Timo Walther <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Becket, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> let me try to clarify some of your questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. For every option, we also needed to think about how to >>>>>>>> represent >>> it >>>>>>>> in a human readable format. We do not want to allow arbitrary >>>>>>>> nesting >>>>>>>> because that would easily allow to bypass the flattened >>>>>>>> hierarchy of >>>>>>>> config options (`session.memory.min`). The current design >>>>>>>> allows to >>>>>>>> represent every option type as a list. E.g.: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> `myIntOption: 12` can be `myIntListOption: 12;12` >>>>>>>> `myObjectOption: field=12,other=true` can be `myObjectListOption: >>>>>>>> field=12,other=true; field=12,other=true` >>>>>>>> `myPropertyOption: key=str0,other=str1` can be >>>>>>>> `myPropertyListOption: >>>>>>>> key=str0,other=str1;key=str0,other=str1` >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We need the atomic class for serialization/deserialization both in >>>>>>>> binary and string format. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ConfigOption<List> is not present in the code base yet, but this >>>>>>>> FLIP is >>>>>>>> a preparation of making ExecutionConfig configurable. If you look >>> into >>>>>>>> this class or also in existing table connectors/formats, you >>>>>>>> will see >>>>>>>> that each proposed option type has its requirements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Regarding extending the description of ConfigOptions, the >>>>>>>> semantic of >>>>>>>> one option should be a super set of the other option. E.g. in >>>>>>>> Table >>> API >>>>>>>> we might use general ExecutionConfig properties. But we would like >>>>>>>> to a) >>>>>>>> make external options more prominent in the Table API config >>>>>>>> docs to >>>>>>>> link people to properties they should pay attention b) notice >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>> effects. The core semantic of a property should not change. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. The factory will not receive the entire configuration but works >>> in a >>>>>>>> separate key space. For `myObjectOption` above, it would receive a >>>>>>>> configuration that consists of `field: 12` and `other: true`. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree. I will convert the document into a Wiki page today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29.08.19 09:00, Stephan Ewen wrote: >>>>>>>>> @Becket One thing that may be non-obvious is that the >>>>>>>>> Configuration >>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>> also defines serialization / persistence logic at the moment. >>>>>>>>> So it >>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>> to know the set of types it supports. That stands in the way >>>>>>>>> of an >>>>>>>>> arbitrary generic map type. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Timo I agree though that it seems a bit inconsistent to have one >>>>>>>>> collection orthogonal to the type (List) and another one bound to >>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>> types (Map). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:20 AM Becket Qin <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal. Sorry for the late comments, but I >>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>> questions / comments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Is a new field of isList necessary in the ConfigOption? >>>>>>>>>> Would it be enough to just check the atomicClass to see if it >>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> List >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> not? >>>>>>>>>> Also, in the ConfigOption<Map> class case, are we always assume >>>>>>>>>> both key >>>>>>>>>> and value types are String? Can we just apply the same to the >>>>>>>>>> ConfigOption<List>? >>>>>>>>>> BTW, I did a quick search in the codebase but did not find any >>>>>>>>>> usage of >>>>>>>>>> ConfigOption<List>. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. The same config name, but with two ConfigOption with >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> semantic >>>>>>>>>> in different component seems super confusing. For example, when >>> users >>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>>> both configs, they may have no idea one is overriding the other. >>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>> might be two cases: >>>>>>>>>> - If it is just the same config used by different >>>>>>>>>> components to >>>>>>>>>> act >>>>>>>>>> accordingly, it might be better to just have one config, but >>> describe >>>>>>>>>> clearly on how that config will be used. >>>>>>>>>> - If it is actually two configurations that can be set >>>>>>>>>> differently, I >>>>>>>>>> think the config names should just be different. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Regarding the ConfigurableFactory, is the toConfiguration() >>> method >>>>>>>>>> pretty much means getConfiguration()? The toConfiguration() >>>>>>>>>> method >>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> like converting an object to a configuration, which only >>>>>>>>>> works if >>> the >>>>>>>>>> object does not contain any state / value. I am also >>>>>>>>>> wondering if >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a real use case of this method. Because supposedly the >>> configurations >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>> just be passed around to caller of this method. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also, can you put the proposal into the FLIP wiki instead of >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> doc before voting? The FLIP wiki allows track the modification >>>>>>>>>> history >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> has a more established structure to ensure nothing is missed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:34 PM Timo Walther >>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I updated the FLIP proposal one more time as mentioned in the >>> voting >>>>>>>>>>> thread. If there are no objections, I will start a new voting >>> thread >>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow at 9am Berlin time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22.08.19 14:19, Timo Walther wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for all the feedback we have received online and >>>>>>>>>>>> offline. >>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> showed that many people support the idea of evolving the Flink >>>>>>>>>>>> configuration functionality. I'm almost sure that this FLIP >>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> solve all issues but at least will improve the current status. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We've updated the document and replaced the Correlation part >>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>> concept of a ConfigOptionGroup that can provide all available >>>>>>>>>>>> options >>>>>>>>>>>> of a group plus custom group validators for eager validation. >>>>>>>>>>>> For now, >>>>>>>>>>>> this eager group validation will only be used at certain >>>>>>>>>>>> locations in >>>>>>>>>>>> the Flink code but it prepares for maybe validating the entire >>>>>>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>>>>>> configuration before submitting a job in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please take another look if you find time. I hope we can >>>>>>>>>>>> proceed >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> the voting process if there are no objections. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.08.19 um 12:54 schrieb Timo Walther: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephan, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your suggestions. Let me give you some background >>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions made in this FLIP: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Goal: The FLIP is labelled "evolve" not "rework" >>>>>>>>>>>>> because we >>> did >>>>>>>>>>>>> not want to change the entire configuration infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Both for >>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards-compatibility reasons and the amount of work that >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> required to update all options. If our goal is to rework the >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration option entirely, I might suggest to switch >>>>>>>>>>>>> to JSON >>>>>>>>>>>>> format with JSON schema and JSON validator. However, setting >>>>>>>>>>>>> properties in a CLI or web interface becomes more tricky the >>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>> nested structures are allowed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Class-based Options: The current ConfigOption<T> class is >>>>>>>>>>>>> centered >>>>>>>>>>>>> around Java classes where T is determined by the default >>>>>>>>>>>>> value. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP just makes this more explicit by offering an explicit >>>>>>>>>>>>> `intType()` method etc. The current design of validators >>> centered >>>>>>>>>>>>> around Java classes makes it possible to have typical domain >>>>>>>>>>>>> validators baked by generics as you suggested. If we >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> types >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as "quantity with measure and unit" we still need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> get a >>>>>>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>>>>> out of this option at the end, so why changing a proven >>>>>>>>>>>>> concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. List Options: The `isList` prevents having arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>> nesting. As >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawid mentioned, we kept human readability in mind. For every >>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>> option like "key=12" can be represented by a list >>>>>>>>>>>>> "keys=12;13". >>>>>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't want to go further; esp. no nesting. A dedicated >>>>>>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>>>>>> option >>>>>>>>>>>>> would start making this more complicated such as >>>>>>>>>>>>> "ListOption(ObjectOption(ListOption(IntOption, ...), >>>>>>>>>>>>> StringOption(...)))", do we want that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Correlation: The correlation part is one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions >>>>>>>>>>>>> that I >>>>>>>>>>>>> like least in the document. We can also discuss removing it >>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think it solves the use case of relating options >>>>>>>>>>>>> with each >>>>>>>>>>>>> other in a flexible way right next to the actual option. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>> being hidden in some component initialization, we should >>>>>>>>>>>>> put it >>>>>>>>>>>>> close >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the option to also perform validation eagerly instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>> failing >>>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime when the option is accessed the first time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 18.08.19 um 23:32 schrieb Stephan Ewen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "List Type" sounds like a good direction to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The comment on the type system was a bit brief, I agree. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if something like that can ease validation. Especially the >>>>>>>>>> correlation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system seems quite complex (proxies to work around order of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialization). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, let's assume we don't think primarily about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "java >>>>>>>>>>>>>> types" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would define types as one of the following (just examples, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the details through): >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) category type: implies string, and a fix set of >>> possible >>>>>>>>>> values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those would be passes and naturally make it into the docs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maps to a String or Enum in Java. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) numeric integer type: implies long (or optionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> integer, >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we want >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to automatically check overflow / underflow). would take >>> typical >>>>>>>>>> domain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validators, like non-negative, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) numeric real type: same as above (double or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> float) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) numeric interval type: either defined as an >>> interval, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> references >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other parameter by key. validation by valid interval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) quantity: a measure and a unit. separately >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parsable. >>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type could be any of the numeric types above, with same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> With a system like the above, would we still correlation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validators? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there still cases that we need to catch early (config >>>>>>>>>>>>>> loading) >>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining cases sufficiently rare and runtime or setup >>> specific, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine to handle them in component initialization? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 6:36 PM Dawid Wysakowicz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually list/composite types are the topics we spent the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. I understand that from a perspective of a full blown >>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a field like isList may look weird. Please let me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the reason behind it though. Maybe we weren't clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the FLIP. The key feature of all the conifg options is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a string representation as they might come from a >>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. Moreover it must be a human readable format, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>> values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be manually adjusted. Having that in mind we did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support of an arbitrary nesting and we decided to allow for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and flat objects - I think though in the current design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake around the Configurable interface). I think though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point here and it would be better to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ListConfigOption >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this field. Does it make sense to you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the second part of your message. I am not sure if I >>>>>>>>>> understood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. The validators work with parse/deserialized values from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Configuration that means they can be bound to the generic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Configuration. You can have a RangeValidator<? extends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comparable/Number>. I don't think the type hierarchy in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ConfigOption >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has anything to do with the validation logic. Could you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more what did you mean? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/08/2019 16:42, Stephan Ewen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea of enhancing the configuration and to do >>> early >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel that some of the ideas in the FLIP seem a bit ad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hoc, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, having a boolean "isList" is a clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication of >>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought through the type/category system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, having a more clear category system makes validation >>>>>>>> simpler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I have seen systems distinguishing between >>> numeric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (valid ranges), category parameters (set of possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like duration and memory size (need measure and unit), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegant system for validation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 5:22 PM JingsongLee < >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to this, thanks Timo and Dawid for the design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This allows the currently cluttered configuration of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules to be unified. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is also first step of one of the keys to making new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment available for production. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Previously, we did encounter complex configurations, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifying the skewed values of column in DDL. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skew may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a single field or a combination of multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration is very troublesome. We used JSON >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string >>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong Lee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From:Jark Wu <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Send Time:2019年8月16日(星期五) 16:44 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To:dev <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and >>>>>>>>>> Configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for starting this design Timo and Dawid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improving ConfigOption has been hovering in my mind for a >>> long >>>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have seen the benefit when developing blink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties in 1.9 release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up and make such a detailed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will leave my thoughts and comments there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:30, Zili Chen < >>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks interesting. Thanks for preparing this FLIP! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Client API enhancement benefit from this evolution which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hopefully provides a better view of configuration of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In client API enhancement, we likely make the deployment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of cluster and submission of job totally defined by >>>>>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will take a look at the document in days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tison. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther <[hidden email]> 于2019年8月16日周五 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 下午10:12写道： >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawid and I are working on making parts of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ExecutionConfig and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableConfig configurable via config options. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all properties also available in SQL. Additionally, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on properties as well as more connectors and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming up, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified configuration becomes more important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need more features around string-based configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why Dawid and I would like to propose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-54 for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ConfigOption and Configuration classes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IQ7nwXqmhCy900t2vQLEL3N2HIdMg-JO8vTzo1BtyKU/edit >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In summary it adds: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - documented types and validation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - more common types such as memory size, duration, list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - simple non-nested object types >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > |
signature.asc (849 bytes)
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Hi Becket, Regarding your example of the Configurable, this is not what we envisioned. What we think of a Configurable is a way to store simple POJOs that might be parameters for your some part of your system. The example you described should be rather expressed in a following way: // Define the Plugin class ConfigOption.
ConfigOption<Class<SomePluginInterface>> option =
ConfigOptions.key("pluginConfigKey")
.classType(org.apache.flink.SomePluginInterface.class);
class Host extends Configurable {
private String address;
private Int port;
private static final ConfigOption<String> addressOption
private static final ConfigOption<Int> portOption;
//let's assume the original solution for now
private void fromConfiguration(ConfigurationReader config) {
this.address = config.get(addressOption);
this.port = config.get(portOption);
}
}
ConfigOption<Host> hostOption =
ConfigOptions.key("configKey1ForMyPluginClass")
.classType(org.apache.flink.SomePluginInterface.class);
// Instantiate the user configured plugin
Class<SomePluginInterface> pluginClass = configuration.get(pluginConfigKey);
Host host = configuration.get(hostOption);
pluginClass.newInstance(host);
// Programmatically, users will do the following to set the plugin.
configurations.set(option, MyPluginClass.class);
configurations.set(hostOption, new Host()); // set the
configurations required by my plugin class.
// Non-programmatically, users can do the following to set the plugin in a
config file, e.g. yaml
pluginConfigKey: PATH_TO_MyPluginClass
configKey1ForMyPluginClass: host: localhost, port: 1234 // see that all options of Configurable are stored in a single key
"I'd imagine that in most cases, after a concrete Configurable (say ExecutionConfig) instance is created from the Configuration instance, we will just pass around the ExecutionConfig instead of the Configuration object." That's not the case. It's the
Configuration object that's sent around in most of the cases. It
would be a major rework of the Configuration handling to
actually change that. Best, Dawid On 03/09/2019 05:59, Becket Qin wrote:
Hi Timo, I think I might have misunderstood the scope or motivation of the FLIP a little bit. Please let me clarify a little bit. Regarding "great if we don't put this burden on users", we shouldconsider who is actually using this API. It is not first-level API but mostly API for Flink contributors. Most of the users will use API classes ike ExecutionConfig or TableConfig or other builders for performing configuration. They will never use the ConfigOptions classes directly. So enforcing a duplicate method does not sound like a burden to me. |
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
In reply to this post by Becket Qin
Hi Becket,
You are right, that what we had in mind for ExecutionConfig/CheckpointConfig etc. is the option b) from your email. In the context of the FLIP-54, those objects are not Configurable. What we understood as a Configurable by the FLIP-54 are a simple pojos, that are stored under a single key. Such as the examples either from the ML thread (Host) or from the design doc (CacheFile). So when configuring the host user can provide a host like this: connector.host: address:localhost, port:1234 rather than connector.host.address: localhost connector.host.port: 1234 This is important especially if one wants to configure lists of such objects: connector.hosts: address:localhost,port:1234;address:localhost,port:4567 The intention was definitely not to store whole complex objects, such as ExecutionConfig, CheckpointConfig etc. that contain multiple different options Maybe it makes sense to call it ConfigObject as Aljosha suggested? What do you think? Would that make it more understandable? For the initialization/configuration of objects such as ExecutionConfig, CheckpointConfig you may have a look at FLIP-59[1] where we suggest to add a configure method to those classes and we pretty much describe the process you outline in the last message. Best, Dawid [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-59%3A+Enable+execution+configuration+from+Configuration+object On 04/09/2019 03:37, Becket Qin wrote: > Hi Timo, Dawid and Aljoscha, > > Thanks for clarifying the goals. It is very helpful to understand the > motivation here. It would be great to add them to the FLIP wiki. > > I agree that the current FLIP design achieves the two goals it wants to > achieve. But I am trying to see is if the current approach is the most > reasonable approach. > > Please let me check if I understand this correctly. From end users' > perspective, they will do the following when they want to configure their > Flink Jobs. > 1. Create a Configuration instance, and call setters of Configuration with > the ConfigOptions defined in different components. > 2. The Configuration created in step 1 will be passed around, and each > component will just exact their own options from it. > 3. ExecutionConfig, CheckpointConfig (and other Config classes) will become > a Configurable, which is responsible for extracting the configuration > values from the Configuration set by users in step 1. > > The confusion I had was that in step 1, how users are going to set the > configs for the ExecutionConfig / CheckpointConfig? There may be two ways: > a) Users will call setConfigurable(ExectionConfigConfigurableOption, > "config1:v1,config2:v2,config3:v3"), i.e. the entire ExecutionConfig is > exposed as a Configurable to the users. > b) Users will call setInteger(MAX_PARALLELISM, 1), > setInteger(LATENCY_TRACKING_INTERVAL, 1000), etc.. This means users will > set individual ConfigOptions for the ExecutionConfig. And they do not see > ExecutionConfig as a Configurable. > > I assume we are following b), then do we need to expose Configurable to the > users in this FLIP? My concern is that the Configurable may be related to > other mechanism such as plugin which we have not really thought through in > this FLIP. > > I know Becket at least has some thoughts about immutability and loading >> objects via the configuration but maybe they could be put into a follow-up >> FLIP if they are needed. > I am perfectly fine to leave something out of the scope of this FLIP to > later FLIPs. But I think it is important to avoid introducing something in > this FLIP that will be shortly changed by the follow-up FLIPs. > > Thanks, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:47 PM Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think it’s important to keep in mind the original goals of this FLIP and >> not let the scope grow indefinitely. As I recall it, the goals are: >> >> - Extend the ConfigOption system enough to allow the Table API to >> configure options that are right now only available on >> CheckpointingOptions, ExecutionConfig, and StreamExecutionEnvironment. We >> also want to do this without manually having to “forward” all the available >> configuration options by introducing equivalent setters in the Table API >> >> - Do the above while keeping in mind that eventually we want to allow >> users to configure everything from either the flink-conf.yaml, vie command >> line parameters, or via a Configuration. >> >> I think the FLIP achieves this, with the added side goals of making >> validation a part of ConfigOptions, making them type safe, and making the >> validation constraints documentable (via automatic doc generation.) All >> this without breaking backwards compatibility, if I’m not mistaken. >> >> I think we should first agree what the basic goals are so that we can >> quickly converge to consensus on this FLIP because it blocks other >> people/work. Among other things FLIP-59 depends on this. What are other >> opinions that people have? I know Becket at least has some thoughts about >> immutability and loading objects via the configuration but maybe they could >> be put into a follow-up FLIP if they are needed. >> >> Also, I had one thought on the interaction of this FLIP-54 and FLIP-59 >> when it comes to naming. I think eventually it makes sense to have a common >> interface for things that are configurable from a Configuration (FLIP-59 >> introduces the first batch of this). It seems natural to call this >> interface Configurable. That’s a problem for this FLIP-54 because we also >> introduce a Configurable. Maybe the thing that we introduce here should be >> called ConfigObject or ConfigStruct to highlight that it has a more narrow >> focus and is really only a POJO for holding a bunch of config options that >> have to go together. What do you think? >> >> Best, >> Aljoscha >> >>> On 3. Sep 2019, at 14:08, Timo Walther <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Danny, >>> >>> yes, this FLIP covers all the building blocks we need also for >> unification of the DDL properties. >>> Regards, >>> Timo >>> >>> >>> On 03.09.19 13:45, Danny Chan wrote: >>>>> with the new SQL DDL >>>> based on properties as well as more connectors and formats coming up, >>>> unified configuration becomes more important >>>> >>>> I Cann’t agree more, do you think we can unify the config options key >> format here for all the DDL properties ? >>>> Best, >>>> Danny Chan >>>> 在 2019年8月16日 +0800 PM10:12，[hidden email]，写道： >>>>> with the new SQL DDL >>>>> based on properties as well as more connectors and formats coming up, >>>>> unified configuration becomes more important >>> >> |
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |