There is no fundamental reason to not implement this for batch as well. In Streaming, users seem to want more control about threads and resources (given that these are often continuous pipelines), while in batch that was not requested so far.
But I see that a non-chained function is more safe with respect to accidental object reuse by a user in their functions... On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> wrote: > Is there a reason to not also implement this for batch processing? This > would allow object reuse to be truly disabled. > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > It may be useful for example when you have two MapFunctions and each does > > something CPU intensive, or communicates with an external service. > > > > Without chaining, you will have two threads and an elastic channel > between > > the functions to buffer some records, which may help in such a case. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> wrote: > > > > > When is this useful in streaming? > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-0.10/api/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/environment/StreamExecutionEnvironment.html#disableOperatorChaining() > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is it possible to force operator chaining to be disabled? Similar > to > > > how > > > > > object reuse can be enabled or disabled? > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
