MapState support for operator state

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MapState support for operator state

Dániel Berecz
Hi everyone,

I would like to ask if there is any conceptual problem with having MapState
available for operator states, or is it just a lack of implementation?

Best regards,
Daniel Berecz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapState support for operator state

Till Rohrmann
Hi Daniel,

I don't think that there is a fundamental problem of having MapState
available for operator state. First, there are some questions to be
answered though: How do you union map state and how do you split map state
in case of repartitioning. Once this has been answered one needs to
implement the corresponding behaviour.

Cheers,
Till

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:29 AM Dániel Berecz <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to ask if there is any conceptual problem with having MapState
> available for operator states, or is it just a lack of implementation?
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel Berecz
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapState support for operator state

Fabian Hueske-2
One challenge would be duplicate keys in this context.

Am Do., 4. Okt. 2018 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Till Rohrmann <
[hidden email]>:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> I don't think that there is a fundamental problem of having MapState
> available for operator state. First, there are some questions to be
> answered though: How do you union map state and how do you split map state
> in case of repartitioning. Once this has been answered one needs to
> implement the corresponding behaviour.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:29 AM Dániel Berecz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to ask if there is any conceptual problem with having
> MapState
> > available for operator states, or is it just a lack of implementation?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel Berecz
> >
>