Wouldn't this kind of cross-task communication break the whole dataflow abstraction? How can recovery be implemented if we allowed something like this?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > That is not what Ufuk said. You can use a singleton auxiliary task that > communicates in both directions with the vertices and acts as a coordinator > between vertices on the same level. > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thank you! > > I was aware of the iterations as a possibility, but I was wondering if we > > might have "lateral" communications. > > > > Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2015. jún. 4., Cs, > 13:29): > > > > > > > > On 04 Jun 2015, at 12:46, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > There is no "lateral communication" right now. Typical pattern is to > > > break > > > > it up in two operators that communicate in an all-to-all fashion. > > > > > > You can look at the iteration tasks: the iteration sync task is > > > communicating with the iteration heads like this. > > >
