I agree with Becket. Although I find the use of gauge to pass contextual information less intuitive, it is acceptable within the metric group interface (plus javadoc).
Thanks, Thomas On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 10:06 PM Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > Personally speaking, it is intuitive for me to set a gauge in MetricGroup. > So I am fine with set*Gauge pattern as long as the method is in > *MetricGroup class. > > Thanks, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 7:24 PM Arvid Heise <ar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > @Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> @Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> would > > you > > also agree to @Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 's proposal? > > > > I think the main intention is to only use a Gauge when the exact metric > is > > exposed. For any partial value that may be used in an internal/predefined > > metric, we would only use a supplier instead of a Gauge. > > > > So a connector developer can immediately distinguish the cases: if it's a > > metric class he would see the exact metric corresponding to the setter. > If > > it's some Supplier, the developer would expect that the value is used in > a > > differently named metric, which we would describe in the JavaDoc. > > Could that also be a solution to the currentEventFetchTimeLag metric? > > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:54 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:58 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > Although I still think all the set* methods should accept a Supplier > > > > instead of a Gauge. > > > > > > > > On 02/08/2021 12:36, Becket Qin wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for driving the efforts, Arvid. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:55 AM Arvid Heise <ar...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Dear devs, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'd like to open a vote on FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator > > > > Metrics > > > > >>> [1] which was discussed in this thread [2]. > > > > >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours unless there is an > > > > objection > > > > >>> or not enough votes. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The proposal excludes the implementation for the > > > > currentFetchEventTimeLag > > > > >>> metric, which caused a bit of discussion without a clear > > convergence. > > > > We > > > > >>> will implement that metric in a generic way at a later point and > > > > >> encourage > > > > >>> sources to implement it themselves in the meantime. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Arvid > > > > >>> > > > > >>> [1] > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-179%3A+Expose+Standardized+Operator+Metrics > > > > >>> [2] > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r856920cbfe6a262b521109c5bdb9e904e00a9b3f1825901759c24d85%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
