Hi Sebastian, thank you for the feedback. I agree that both variants have a right to exist.
I would vote for adding another method to the DataSet called "printLocal()" that has the old behavior. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Kruse, Sebastian <sebastian.kr...@hpi.de> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am a bit worried about that recent change of the print() method. I can > understand the rationale that obtaining the stdout from all the > taskmanagers is cumbersome (although, for local debugging the old print() > was fine). > However, a major problem, I see with the new print(), is, that now you can > only have one print() per plan, as the plan is directly executed as soon as > print() is invoked. If you regard print() as a debugging means, this is a > severe restriction. > I see use cases for both print() implementations, but I would at least > provide some kind of backwards compatibility, be at a parameter or a > legacyPrint() method or anything else. As I assume print() to be very > frequently used, a lot of existing programs would benefit from this and > might otherwise not be directly portable to newer Flink versions. What do > you think? > > Cheers, > Sebastian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Metzger [mailto:rmetz...@apache.org] > Sent: Dienstag, 26. Mai 2015 11:12 > To: dev@flink.apache.org > Subject: Re: Changed the behavior of "DataSet.print()" > > I've filed a JIRA to update the documentation: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2092 > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > Me merged a patch yesterday that changed the API behavior of the > > "DataSet.print()" function. > > > > "print()" now prints to stdout on the client process, rather than the > > TaskManager process, as before. This is much nicer for debugging and > > exploring data sets. > > > > One implication of this is that print() is now an eager method ( like > > collect() or count() ). That means that calling "print()" immediately > > triggers the execution, and no "env.execute()" is required any more. > > > > Greetings, > > Stephan > > > > >
