Thanks Gyula for discussing this topic! I also prefer Proposal 2 which merges 
*flinkConfiguration* and *operatorConfiguration* for easily understanding to 
end Flink users. IMO, from an end-user perspective, the *flinkConfiguration* 
and *operatorConfiguration* are the configuration related to the Flink 
deployment or job, that there is no need to distinguish and let users configure 
separately. 

Best,
Nicholas Jiang

On 2022/04/01 18:25:14 Gyula Fóra wrote:
> Hi Devs!
> 
> *Background*:
> With more and more features and options added to the flink kubernetes
> operator it would make sense to not expose everything as first class
> options in the deployment/jobspec (same as we do for flink configuration
> currently).
> 
> Furthermore it would be beneficial if users could control reconciliation
> specific settings like timeouts, reschedule delays etc on a per deployment
> basis.
> 
> 
> *Proposal 1*The more conservative proposal would be to add a new
> *operatorConfiguration* field to the deployment spec that the operator
> would use during the controller loop (merged with the default operator
> config). This makes the operator very extensible with new options and would
> also allow overrides to the default operator config on a per deployment
> basis.
> 
> 
> *Proposal 2*I would actually go one step further and propose that we should
> merge *flinkConfiguration* and *operatorConfiguration* -as whether
> something affects the flink job submission/job or the operator behaviour
> does not really make a difference to the end user. For users the operator
> is part of flink so having a multiple configuration maps could simply cause
> confusion.
> We could simply prefix all operator related configs with
> `kubernetes.operator` to ensure that we do not accidentally conflict with
> flink native config options.
> If we go this route I would even go as far as to naming it simply
> *configuration* for sake of simplicity.
> 
> I personally would go with proposal 2 to make this as simple as possible
> for the users.
> 
> Please let me know what you think!
> Gyula
> 

Reply via email to