I saw that the tool is missing Javadocs. I think that this is a prerequisite before moving it into all the examples (or at least both should happen hand in hand). I would like an example-centric style there.
– Ufuk > On 04 Sep 2015, at 14:46, Behrouz Derakhshan <behrouz.derakhs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Yes, I was referring mostly to blog posts and other websites and was > wondering if breaking them is an issue or not. > I have already created a subtask to add support for positional arguments ( > FLINK-2621 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2621>), so the > examples would be backward compatible. > The problem with that is, we have to detect from the arguments to the > program, if they are positional or key/value and parse them accordingly. > But if everyone is OK with completely switching to ParameterTool and > breaking the support for the old way of executing the examples, then my job > would be also a lot easier. > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > >> If you are referring to this training material ( >> >> https://github.com/dataArtisans/flink-training-exercises/blob/master/src/main/java/com/dataArtisans/flinkTraining/exercises/dataStreamJava/rideCleansing/RideCleansing.java >> ), >> some of the examples are actually already using the ParameterTool. >> >> The problem are probably websites / blogposts etc. that show how to use the >> Flink examples. But I think its fine to break these. All example jars >> contain the version number. If the way we pass arguments to the examples >> changes between 0.9 and 0.10, that should be fine. >> >> I think using the ParameterTool for the examples will improve the >> readability of the examples a lot. Right now, all examples have a >> (copy-pasted) parseParameters() method, which is doing very simplistic >> parameter parsing. >> >> The PT tool also allows to show the input parameters in the web interface. >> >> So I'm voting for doing a breaking change and using parameters such as >> "--input hdfs:/// --output hdfs:/// --iterations 15". >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Behrouz Derakhshan < >> behrouz.derakhs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Will do. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Behrouz >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Behrouz, >>>> >>>> I would create a new sub-task under the original issue that introduce >>>> the ParameterTool: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1525 >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Max >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Behrouz Derakhshan >>>> <behrouz.derakhs...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Max, >>>>> >>>>> What you said makes sense, for "ParameterTool doesn't seem to support >>>>> positional arguments :) but we could fix that." should we create a >>>> separate >>>>> ticket or should it also be part of FLINK-2021 ? >>>>> >>>>> BR, >>>>> Behrouz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Behrouz, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for starting the discussion. If I understand your question >>>>>> correctly, you are asking if it breaks the training or other >> external >>>>>> material if we convert the Flink examples to make use of the >>>>>> ParameterTool? >>>>>> >>>>>> We could make the changes such that the examples will accept the >> same >>>>>> parameters but use the ParameterTool internally to verify the >>>>>> parameters and print usage information. I think most examples simply >>>>>> use positional arguments and we could keep it that way. The only >>>>>> problem is that the ParameterTool doesn't seem to support positional >>>>>> arguments :) but we could fix that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Max >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Behrouz Derakhshan >>>>>> <behrouz.derakhs...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had at look at this ticket FLINK-2021 >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2021>, there isn't >>> much >>>> to >>>>>> do >>>>>>> from a technical stand point and it kinda makes sense to use the >> new >>>>>>> "ParameterTool", since it is being used in most of the other part >> of >>>> the >>>>>>> code base. >>>>>>> The only question is do we really want to do it, since I'm >> guessing >>>> some >>>>>> of >>>>>>> the training materials, slides and articles are referencing these >>>>>> examples >>>>>>> and updating those might be a burden. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know what you guys think, either I can start working on it >> or >>>> we >>>>>> can >>>>>>> just resolve it for good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Behrouz >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>
