Hi Stephan, Thank you for your opinion.
Actually list/composite types are the topics we spent the most of the time. I understand that from a perspective of a full blown type system, a field like isList may look weird. Please let me elaborate a bit more on the reason behind it though. Maybe we weren't clear enough about it in the FLIP. The key feature of all the conifg options is that they must have a string representation as they might come from a configuration file. Moreover it must be a human readable format, so that the values might be manually adjusted. Having that in mind we did not want to add a support of an arbitrary nesting and we decided to allow for lists only (and flat objects - I think though in the current design there is a mistake around the Configurable interface). I think though you have a point here and it would be better to have a ListConfigOption instead of this field. Does it make sense to you? As for the second part of your message. I am not sure if I understood it. The validators work with parse/deserialized values from Configuration that means they can be bound to the generic parameter of Configuration. You can have a RangeValidator<? extends Comparable/Number>. I don't think the type hierarchy in the ConfigOption has anything to do with the validation logic. Could you elaborate a bit more what did you mean? Best, Dawid On 18/08/2019 16:42, Stephan Ewen wrote: > I like the idea of enhancing the configuration and to do early validation. > > I feel that some of the ideas in the FLIP seem a bit ad hoc, though. For > example, having a boolean "isList" is a clear indication of not having > thought through the type/category system. > Also, having a more clear category system makes validation simpler. > > For example, I have seen systems distinguishing between numeric parameters > (valid ranges), category parameters (set of possible values), quantities > like duration and memory size (need measure and unit), which results in an > elegant system for validation. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 5:22 PM JingsongLee <lzljs3620...@aliyun.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> +1 to this, thanks Timo and Dawid for the design. >> This allows the currently cluttered configuration of various >> modules to be unified. >> This is also first step of one of the keys to making new unified >> TableEnvironment available for production. >> >> Previously, we did encounter complex configurations, such as >> specifying the skewed values of column in DDL. The skew may >> be a single field or a combination of multiple fields. So the >> configuration is very troublesome. We used JSON string to >> configure it. >> >> Best, >> Jingsong Lee >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> From:Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> >> Send Time:2019年8月16日(星期五) 16:44 >> To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-54: Evolve ConfigOption and Configuration >> >> Thanks for starting this design Timo and Dawid, >> >> Improving ConfigOption has been hovering in my mind for a long time. >> We have seen the benefit when developing blink configurations and connector >> properties in 1.9 release. >> Thanks for bringing it up and make such a detailed design. >> I will leave my thoughts and comments there. >> >> Cheers, >> Jark >> >> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:30, Zili Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Timo, >>> >>> It looks interesting. Thanks for preparing this FLIP! >>> >>> Client API enhancement benefit from this evolution which >>> hopefully provides a better view of configuration of Flink. >>> In client API enhancement, we likely make the deployment >>> of cluster and submission of job totally defined by configuration. >>> >>> Will take a look at the document in days. >>> >>> Best, >>> tison. >>> >>> >>> Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> 于2019年8月16日周五 下午10:12写道： >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Dawid and I are working on making parts of ExecutionConfig and >>>> TableConfig configurable via config options. This is necessary to make >>>> all properties also available in SQL. Additionally, with the new SQL >> DDL >>>> based on properties as well as more connectors and formats coming up, >>>> unified configuration becomes more important. >>>> >>>> We need more features around string-based configuration in the future, >>>> which is why Dawid and I would like to propose FLIP-54 for evolving the >>>> ConfigOption and Configuration classes: >>>> >>>> >>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IQ7nwXqmhCy900t2vQLEL3N2HIdMg-JO8vTzo1BtyKU/edit >>>> In summary it adds: >>>> - documented types and validation >>>> - more common types such as memory size, duration, list >>>> - simple non-nested object types >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your feedback, >>>> Timo >>>> >>>> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
