That would also work. I thought about it already, too. Thanks for the feedback. If two people have similar idea, it might be the right way to got. I will just include all this stuff and open an PR. Than we can evaluate it again.
-Matthias On 06/30/2015 12:01 AM, Gyula Fóra wrote: > By declare I mean we assume a Flink Tuple datatype and the user declares > the name mapping (sorry its getting late). > > Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2015. jún. 29., H, > 23:57): > >> Ah ok, now I get what I didn't get before :) >> >> So you want to take some input stream , and execute a bolt implementation >> on it. And the question is what input type to assume when the user wants to >> use field name based access. >> >> Can't we force the user to declare the names of the inputs/outputs even in >> this case? Otherwise there is not much we can do. Maybe stick to either >> public fields or getter setters. >> >> >> Matthias J. Sax <mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de> ezt írta (időpont: 2015. >> jún. 29., H, 23:51): >> >>> Well. If a whole Storm topology is executed, this is of course the way >>> to got. However, I want to have named-attribute access in the case of an >>> embedded bolt (as a single operator) in a Flink program. And is this >>> case, fields are not declared and do not have a name (eg, if the bolt's >>> consumers emits a stream of type Tuple3) >>> >>> -Matthias >>> >>> >>> On 06/29/2015 11:42 PM, Gyula Fóra wrote: >>>> Hey, >>>> I didn't look through the whole code so I probably don't get something >>> but >>>> why don't you just do what storm does? Keep a map from the field names >>> to >>>> indexes somewhere (make this accessible from the tuple) and then you can >>>> just use a simple Flink tuple. >>>> >>>> I think this is what's happening in storm, they get the index from the >>>> context, which knows the declared output fields. >>>> >>>> Gyula >>>> >>>> Matthias J. Sax <mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de> ezt írta (időpont: >>> 2015. >>>> jún. 29., H, 18:08): >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I started to work on a missing feature for the Storm compatibility >>>>> layer: named attribute access >>>>> >>>>> In Storm, each attribute of an input tuple can be accessed via index or >>>>> by name. Currently, only index access is supported. In order to support >>>>> this feature in Flink (embedded Bolt in Flink program), I see two >>>>> (independent and complementary) ways to support this feature: >>>>> >>>>> 1) the input type is a POJO >>>>> 2) Flink's Tuple type is extended to support named attributes >>>>> >>>>> Right now I started a prototype for POJOs. I would like to extend Tuple >>>>> type with named attributes. However, I am not sure how the community >>>>> likes this idea. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to get some feedback for the POJO prototype, too. I use >>>>> reflections and I am not sure if my code is elegant enough. You can >>> find >>>>> it here: https://github.com/mjsax/flink/tree/flink-storm-compatibility >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Matthias >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
