+1 for printOnTaskManager(prefix) On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for printOnTaskManager(prefix) > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 for printOnTaskManager(prefix) > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > +1 for writeToWorkerStdOut(prefix) > > > On Jun 2, 2015 11:42, "Aljoscha Krettek" <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for printOnTaskManager(prefix) > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I would like to reach consensus on this before the 0.9 release. > > > > > > > > > > So far we have the following ideas: > > > > > > > > > > writeToWorkerStdOut(prefix) > > > > > printOnTaskManager(prefix) (+1) > > > > > logOnTaskManager(prefix) > > > > > > > > > > I'm against logOnTM because we are not logging the output, we are > > > writing > > > > > or printing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I would vote for deprecating "print(prefix)" and adding > > > > > "writeToWorkerStdOut(prefix)"* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Chiwan Park < > chiwanp...@icloud.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I agree that avoiding name which starts with “print” is better. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> Chiwan Park > > > > >> > > > > >> > On May 28, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Maximilian Michels < > m...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > +1 for printOnTaskManager() > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Kruse, Sebastian < > > > > >> sebastian.kr...@hpi.de> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks, for your quick responses! > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> I also think that renaming the old print method should do the > > > trick. > > > > As > > > > >> a > > > > >> >> contribution to your brainstorming for a name, I propose > > > > >> logOnTaskManager() > > > > >> >> ;) > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Cheers, > > > > >> >> Sebastian > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> >> From: Fabian Hueske [mailto:fhue...@gmail.com] > > > > >> >> Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 14:34 > > > > >> >> To: dev@flink.apache.org > > > > >> >> Subject: Re: Changed the behavior of "DataSet.print()" > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> As I said, the common print prefix might indicate eager > > execution. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> I know that writeToTaskManagerStdOut() is quite bulky, but we > > > should > > > > >> make > > > > >> >> the difference in the behavior very clear, IMO. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> 2015-05-28 14:29 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>> Actually, there is a method "print(String prefix)" which still > > > goes > > > > to > > > > >> >>> the sysout of where the job is executed. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Let's give that one the name "printOnTaskManager()" and then > we > > > > should > > > > >> >>> have it... > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > fhue...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>>> I would avoid to call it printXYZ, since print()'s behavior > > > changed > > > > >> >>>> to eager execution. > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> 2015-05-28 14:10 GMT+02:00 Robert Metzger < > rmetz...@apache.org > > >: > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>>> Okay, you are right, local is actually confusing. > > > > >> >>>>> I'm against introducing "worker" as a term in the API. Its > > still > > > > >> >>>>> called "TaskManager". Maybe "printOnTaskManager()" ? > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > > fhue...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> +1 for both. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> printLocal() might not be the best name, because "local" is > > not > > > > >> >>>>>> well defined and could also be understood as the local > > machine > > > > >> >>>>>> of the > > > > >> >>> user. > > > > >> >>>>>> How about naming the method completely different > > > > >> >>>> (writeToWorkerStdOut()?) > > > > >> >>>>>> to make sure users are not confused with eager and lazy > > > > execution? > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> 2015-05-28 13:44 GMT+02:00 Robert Metzger < > > rmetz...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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 > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
