Today we had a discussion with Robert on this issue. I would like to eventually have the streaming grouped and the windowing buffers/state maybe along with the crucial state of the user in the managed memory. If we had this separating the two modes could became less important as streaming would also use this space.
I do not propose to change the above decision for the current needs, this is just a heads up. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Paris Carbone <par...@kth.se> wrote: > +1 > > I agree it’s a proper way to go. > > On 18 Feb 2015, at 10:41, Max Michels <m...@apache.org<mailto: > m...@apache.org>> wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org > <mailto:aljos...@apache.org>> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org > <mailto:trohrm...@apache.org>> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org > <mailto:ktzou...@apache.org>> wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Márton Balassi <mbala...@apache.org > <mailto:mbala...@apache.org>> > wrote: > > When it comes to the current use cases I'm for this separation. > @Ufuk: As Gyula has already pointed out with the current design of > integration it should not be a problem. Even if we submitted programs to > the wrong clusters it would only cause performance issues. > > Eventually it would be nice to have an integrated cluster. > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org<mailto: > u...@apache.org>> wrote: > > I think this separation reflects the way that Flink is used currently > anyways. I would be in favor of it as well. > > - What about the ongoing efforts (I think by Gyula) to combine both the > batch and stream processing APIs? I assume that this would only effect > the > performance and wouldn't pose a fundamental problem there, would it? > > > > >
