I like this idea. +1
> On 18 Nov 2015, at 15:25, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I had pretty much in mind what Aljoscha suggested.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> IMHO it’s not possible to have streaming/batch specific ExecutionConfig
>> since the user functions share a common interface, i.e.
>> getRuntimeContext().getExecutionConfig() simply returns the same type for
>> both.
>>
>> What could be done is to migrate batch/streaming specific stuff to the
>> ExecutionEnvironment and keep the ExecutionConfig strictly for stuff that
>> applies to both execution modes.
>>> On 12 Nov 2015, at 11:35, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for separating concerns by having a StreamExecutionConfig and a
>>> BatchExecutionConfig with inheritance from ExecutionConfig for general
>>> options. Not sure about the pre-flight and runtime options. I think
>>> they are ok in one config.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> I think now (before the 1.0 release) is the right time to clean it up.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting to have two execution configs for batch and
>> streaming?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if we need to distinguish between pre-flight and runtime
>>>> options: From a user's perspective, it doesn't matter. For example the
>>>> serializer settings are evaluated during pre-flight but they have a
>> impact
>>>> during execution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> The ExecutionConfig is a bit of a strange thing right now. It looks
>> like it
>>>>> became the place where everyone just put the stuff they want to somehow
>>>>> push from the client to runtime, plus a random assortment of conflig
>> flags.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The ExecutionConfig is available in batch and streaming, but has a
>>>>> number of fields that are very streaming specific, like the watermark
>>>>> interval, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Several fields that are purely pre-flight time relevant are in
>> there,
>>>>> like whether to use the closure cleaner, or whether to force Avro or
>> Kryo
>>>>> serializers for POJOs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any interest in cleaning this up? Because these messy classes simply
>> grow
>>>>> ever more messy unless we establish a proper definition of what its
>>>>> concerns and non-concerns are...
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>
>>
>>
