Hi Matyas! Thanks for your reply! For 1. and 3. scenarios，I couldn't agree more with the podTemplate solution , i missed this part. For savepoint related configuration, I think it's very important to be specified in JobSpec, Because savepoint is a very common configuration for upgrading a job, if it has been placed in JobSpec can be obviously configured by the user. In addition, other advanced properties can be put into flinkConfiguration customized by expert users. A bunch of savepoint configuration as follows:
> fromSavepoint——Job restart from autoSavepointSecond—— Automatically take a savepoint to the `savepointsDir` > every n seconds. savepointsDir—— Savepoints dir where to store automatically taken > savepoints savepointGeneration—— Update savepoint generation of job status for a > running job (should be defined in JobStatus) Best wishes, Peng Yuan. On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Őrhidi Mátyás <matyas.orh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Peng, > > Thanks for your feedback. Regarding 1. and 3. scenarios, the podTemplate > functionality in the operator could cover both. We also need to be careful > about introducing proxy parameters in the CRD spec. The savepoint path is > usually accompanied with a bunch of other configurations for example, so > users need to use configuration params anyway. What do you think? > > Best, > Matyas > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:58 AM K Fred <yuanpengf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Gyula! > > > > I have reviewed the prototype design of flink-kubernetes-operator you > > submitted, and I have the following questions: > > > > 1.Can a Flink Jar package that supports pulling from the sidecar be added > > to the JobSpec? just like this: > > > > > initContainers: > > > - name: downloader > > > image: curlimages/curl > > > env: > > > - name: JAR_URL > > > value: > > > > > > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/flink/flink-examples-streaming_2.12/1.14.3/flink-examples-streaming_2.12-1.14.3-WordCount.jar > > > - name: DEST_PATH > > > value: /cache/flink-app.jar > > > command: ['sh', '-c', 'curl -o ${DEST_PATH} ${JAR_URL}'] > > > > 2.Can we add savepoint path property to job specification? > > 3.Can we add an extra port to the JobManagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec to > > expose some service ,such as prometheus?The property can be this: > > > > > extraPorts: > > > - name: prom > > > containerPort: 9249 > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > Peng Yuan > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:23 AM Gyula Fóra <gyf...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Flink Devs! > > > > > > We would like to present to you the first prototype of the > > > flink-kubernetes-operator that was built based on the FLIP and the > > > discussion on this mail thread. We would also like to call out some > > design > > > decisions that we have made regarding architecture components that were > > not > > > explicitly mentioned in the FLIP document/thread and give you the > > > opportunity to raise any concerns here. > > > > > > You can find the initial prototype here: > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/1 > > > > > > We will leave the PR open for 1-2 days before merging to let people > > comment > > > on it, but please be mindful that this is an initial prototype with > many > > > rough edges. It is not intended to be a complete implementation of the > > FLIP > > > specs as that will take some more work from all of us :) > > > > > > > > > *Prototype feature set:*The prototype contains a basic working version > of > > > the flink-kubernetes-operator that supports deployment and lifecycle > > > management of a stateful native flink application. We have basic > support > > > for stateful and stateless upgrades, UI ingress, pod templates etc. > Error > > > handling at this point is largely missing. > > > > > > > > > *Features / design decisions that were not explicitly discussed in this > > > thread* > > > > > > *Basic Admission control using a Webhook*Standard resource admission > > > control in Kubernetes to validate and potentially reject resources is > > done > > > through Webhooks. > > > > > > > > > https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/extensible-admission-controllers/ > > > This is a necessary mechanism to give the user an upfront error when an > > > incorrect resource was submitted. In the Flink operator's case we need > to > > > validate that the FlinkDeployment yaml actually makes sense and does > not > > > contain erroneous config options that would inevitably lead to > > > deployment/job failures. > > > > > > We have implemented a simple webhook that we can use for this type of > > > validation, as a separate maven module (flink-kubernetes-webhook). The > > > webhook is an optional component and can be enabled or disabled during > > > deployment. To avoid pulling in new external dependencies we have used > > the > > > Flink Shaded Netty module to build the simple rest endpoint required. > If > > > the community feels that Netty adds unnecessary complexity to the > webhook > > > implementation we are open to alternative backends such as Springboot > for > > > instance which would practically eliminate all the boilerplate. > > > > > > > > > *Helm Chart for deployment*Helm charts provide an industry standard way > > of > > > managing kubernetes deployments. We have created a helm chart prototype > > > that can be used to deploy the operator together with all required > > > resources. The helm chart allows easy configuration for things like > > images, > > > namespaces etc and flags to control specific parts of the deployment > such > > > as RBAC or the webhook. > > > > > > The helm chart provided is intended to be a first version that worked > for > > > us during development but we expect to have a lot of iterations on it > > based > > > on the feedback from the community. > > > > > > *Acknowledgment* > > > We would like to thank everyone who has provided support and valuable > > > feedback on this FLIP. > > > We would also like to thank Yang Wang & Alexis Sarda-Espinosa > > specifically > > > for making their operators open source and available to us which had a > > big > > > impact on the FLIP and the prototype. > > > > > > We are looking forward to continuing development on the operator > together > > > with the broader community. > > > All work will be tracked using the ASF Jira from now on. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gyula > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:21 AM K Fred <yuanpengf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Gyula, > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > It's great to see the project getting started and I can't wait to see > > the > > > > PR and start contributing code.😄😄😄 > > > > > > > > Best Wishes! > > > > Peng Yuan > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 4:14 PM Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Peng Yuan! > > > > > > > > > > The repo is already created: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator > > > > > > > > > > We will open the PR with the initial prototype later today, stay > > tuned > > > in > > > > > this thread! :) > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:09 AM K Fred <yuanpengf...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > Has the project of flink-kubernetes-operator been created in > > github? > > > > > > > > > > > > Peng Yuan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:23 AM Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with flink-kubernetes-operator as the repo name :) > > > > > > > Don't have any better idea > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 2:41 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the continued feedback and discussion. Looks like > we > > > are > > > > > > > > ready to start a VOTE, I will initiate it shortly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In parallel it would be good to find the repository name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My suggestion would be: flink-kubernetes-operator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought "flink-operator" could be a bit misleading since > the > > > term > > > > > > > > operator already has a meaning in Flink. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also considered "flink-k8s-operator" but that would be > almost > > > > > > > > identical to existing operator implementations and could lead > > to > > > > > > > > confusion in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:15 AM Gyula Fóra < > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Danny, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far we have been focusing our dev efforts on the initial > > > > native > > > > > > > > > implementation with the team. > > > > > > > > > If the discussion and vote goes well for this FLIP we are > > > looking > > > > > > > forward > > > > > > > > > to contributing the initial version sometime next week > > (fingers > > > > > > > crossed). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At that point I think we can already start the dev work to > > > > support > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > standalone mode as well, especially if you can dedicate > some > > > > effort > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > pushing that side. > > > > > > > > > Working together on this sounds like a great idea and we > > should > > > > > start > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > soon as possible! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:07 PM Danny Cranmer < > > > > > > dannycran...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been discussing this one with my team. We are > > > interested > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Standalone mode, and are willing to contribute towards > the > > > > > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > > > Potentially we can work together to support both modes in > > > > > parallel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 4:02 PM Gyula Fóra < > > > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Danny! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Versioning: > > > > > > > > > > > Versioning will be independent from Flink and the > > operator > > > > will > > > > > > > > depend > > > > > > > > > > on a > > > > > > > > > > > fixed flink version (in every given operator version). > > > > > > > > > > > This should be the exact same setup as with Stateful > > > > Functions > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun). So > > independent > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > cycle > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > still within the Flink umbrella. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deployment error handling: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that's a very good point, as general exception > > > > handling > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > different failure scenarios is a tricky problem. I > think > > > the > > > > > > > > exception > > > > > > > > > > > classifiers and retry strategies could avoid a lot of > > > manual > > > > > > > > intervention > > > > > > > > > > > from the user. We will definitely need to add something > > > like > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > Once > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > have the repo created with the initial operator code we > > > > should > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > tickets for this and put it on the short term roadmap! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 4:50 PM Danny Cranmer < > > > > > > > > dannycran...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey team, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great work on the FLIP, I am looking forward to this > > > one. I > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > can move forward to the voting stage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have general feedback around how we will handle job > > > > > > submission > > > > > > > > > > failure > > > > > > > > > > > > and retry. As discussed in the Rejected Alternatives > > > > section, > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > Java to handle job submission failures from the Flink > > > > client. > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > useful to have the ability to configure exception > > > > classifiers > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > retry > > > > > > > > > > > > strategy as part of operator configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given this will be in a separate Github repository I > am > > > > > curious > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > ther > > > > > > > > > > > > versioning strategy will work in relation to the > Flink > > > > > version? > > > > > > > Do > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > any other components with a similar setup I can look > > at? > > > > Will > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > operator > > > > > > > > > > > > version track Flink or will it use its own versioning > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > > > version support matrix, or similar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 2:33 PM Márton Balassi < > > > > > > > > > > balassi.mar...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi team, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the great feedback, Thomas has > updated > > > the > > > > > FLIP > > > > > > > > page > > > > > > > > > > > > > accordingly. If you are comfortable with the > > currently > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > depth in the FLIP [1] I suggest moving forward to > the > > > > > voting > > > > > > > > stage - > > > > > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > > > > > that reaches a positive conclusion it lets us > create > > > the > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > > > > repository under the flink project for the > operator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I encourage everyone to keep improving the details > in > > > the > > > > > > > > meantime, > > > > > > > > > > > > however > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe given the existing design and the general > > > > > sentiment > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread that the most efficient path from here is > > > starting > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation so that we can collectively iterate > > over > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-212%3A+Introduce+Flink+Kubernetes+Operator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:15 PM Thomas Weise < > > > > > > t...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HI Xintong, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback and please see responses > > > below > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:21 AM Xintong Song < > > > > > > > > > > tonysong...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Thomas for drafting this FLIP, and > > everyone > > > > for > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also have a few questions and comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ## Job Submission > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deploying a Flink session cluster via kubectl & > > CR > > > > and > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > > submitting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jobs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the cluster via Flink cli / REST is probably > > the > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the least effort. However, I'd like to point > out > > 2 > > > > > > > > weaknesses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. A lot of users use Flink in > perjob/application > > > > > modes. > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > users, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > having to run the job in two steps (deploy the > > > > cluster, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > submit > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > job) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not that convenient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. One of our motivations is being able to > manage > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > > > > applications' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lifecycles with kubectl. Submitting jobs from > cli > > > > > sounds > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this motivation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's probably worth it to support > > > submitting > > > > > jobs > > > > > > > via > > > > > > > > > > > > kubectl & > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the first version, both together with > > deploying > > > > the > > > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perjob/application mode and after deploying the > > > > cluster > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > session > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The intention is to support application > management > > > > > through > > > > > > > > operator > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > CR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which means there won't be any 2 step submission > > > > process, > > > > > > > > which as > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allude to would defeat the purpose of this > project. > > > The > > > > > CR > > > > > > > > example > > > > > > > > > > > > shows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the application part. Please note that the bare > > > cluster > > > > > > > > support is > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *additional* feature for scenarios that require > > > > external > > > > > > job > > > > > > > > > > > > management. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there anything on the FLIP page that creates a > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > impression? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ## Versioning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which Flink versions does the operator plan to > > > > support? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Native K8s deployment was firstly introduced > > in > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > 1.10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Native K8s HA was introduced in Flink 1.12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The Pod template support was introduced in > > Flink > > > > > 1.13 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. There was some changes to the Flink docker > > image > > > > > > > > entrypoint > > > > > > > > > > > script > > > > > > > > > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, Flink 1.13 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great, thanks for providing this. It is important > > for > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > > > > > > > > going forward also. We are targeting Flink 1.14.x > > > > > upwards. > > > > > > > > Before > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operator is ready there will be another Flink > > > release. > > > > > > Let's > > > > > > > > see if > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is interested in earlier versions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ## Compatibility > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of API compatibility we can commit > to? > > > It's > > > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alpha / beta version APIs that allow > incompatible > > > > > future > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first version. But eventually we would need to > > > > > guarantee > > > > > > > > > > backwards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility, so that an early version CR can > > work > > > > > with > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another great point and please let me include > that > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > FLIP > > > > > > > > > > page. > > > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should allow incompatible changes for > > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions, similar to how other major features > have > > > > > evolved > > > > > > > > > > recently, > > > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as FLIP-27. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would be great to get broader feedback on this > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:18 PM Thomas Weise < > > > > > > > t...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # 1 Flink Native vs Standalone integration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should make this more clear in the > > > FLIP > > > > > but > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > agreed > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first version of the operator based on the > > > native > > > > > > > > > > integration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While this clearly does not cover all > > use-cases > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > requirements, > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this would lead to a much smaller initial > > > effort > > > > > and > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > nicer > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm also leaning towards the native > > integration, > > > as > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > as it > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduces > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MVP effort. Ultimately the operator will need > > to > > > > also > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone mode. I would like to gain more > > > > confidence > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration reduces the effort. While it cuts > > the > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > handle > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pod creation, some mapping code from the CR > to > > > the > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client and config needs to be created. As > > > mentioned > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > FLIP, > > > > > > > > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration requires the Flink job manager to > > > have > > > > > > access > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > k8s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > create pods, which in some scenarios may be > > seen > > > as > > > > > > > > > > unfavorable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # Pod Template > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the pod template in CR same with > what > > > > Flink > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported[4]? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I am afraid not the arbitrary > > > field(e.g. > > > > > > > > cpu/memory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resources) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, pod template would look almost > identical. > > > > There > > > > > > are > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > few > > > > > > > > > > > > > settings > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the operator will control (and that may > > need > > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > blacklisted), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in general we would not want to place > > > > restrictions. I > > > > > > > > think a > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where a pod template is merged from multiple > > > layers > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting to make this more flexible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
