Hi Zander, Thanks for the reply. It's clear for me now.
> Regarding follow on FLIPs, there are not currently any, but this seems > logical. We could make FLIPs for some of the items that should be discussed > separately and those that don't could be made into issues and tracked that > way? I am open to suggestions and this is my first FLIP so I don't know the > best path forward :). +1 to this approach. > I will add you to the document Dian, and could you > maybe mark some of the items that you think should have their own > discussions? Sure, great! Regards, Dian On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 5:42 AM Zander Matheson <a.w.mathe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On the subject of Beam. I don't think this is a requirement for this > initiative, but ideally, long term, it would be nice to not have to rely on > Beam *where possible*, but I do understand the size of that effort is quite > large and we could move it out of this FLIP. The current work item was > really only around investigation of the alternatives, but we can push it > out. > > Regarding the Inference UDF. There are mechanisms, like caching and sharing > a model across processes, different compute types etc. that are unique to > model inference. This would help teams adopt Flink for more ML/AI use cases. > > On Numpy types, specifically it would be adding support for ndarray in a > similar way to how a pandas series is available in a vectorized UDF. > > Regarding follow on FLIPs, there are not currently any, but this seems > logical. We could make FLIPs for some of the items that should be discussed > separately and those that don't could be made into issues and tracked that > way? I am open to suggestions and this is my first FLIP so I don't know the > best path forward :). I will add you to the document Dian, and could you > maybe mark some of the items that you think should have their own > discussions? > > Best, > > Zander > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 8:22 PM Guowei Ma <guowei....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, Zander > > > > Thank you for bringing this topic up. > > > > Could you give more input about the following improvement? Do you have some > > specific scenario that needs this improvement? > > > > Replace beam local execution > > > > Evaluate alternatives for the local execution engine. > > > > Best, > > Guowei > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 5:24 AM Alexander Matheson <a.w.mathe...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion about a new FLIP for a rather large > > > umbrella of work concerning PyFlink that Dian Fu, Xingbo Huang, myself > > and > > > others have been coordinating around. > > > > > > As PyFlink continues to grow in adoption (downloads are up 10x YoY on > > > PyPI!!!) it is overdue for additional investment to bring it inline with > > > the expectations of the Python community. Given the increase in AI > > > workloads shifting to real-time, these improvements will also help to > > > support the net-new Flink users coming from that space. > > > > > > The Project is called The Zen of Flink as an ode to the driving > > principles > > > of Python called the Zen of Python and is broadly about making Flink more > > > Pythonic. The work falls into six categories across API design, > > > documentation, debuggability, local development, integration with the > > > ecosystem and general usability. Not all of the work is concretely scoped > > > yet and is not planned to be as more improvements will arise as we work > > on > > > this effort. > > > > > > The details of the FLIP can be found in the google doc linked below. > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/18_u1XA9C_zdY_fu1OtQDwYyIk_TwjUfzAUOzhGxbN6w/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > Looking forward to the discussion. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Zander > > > > >
