There is already a Jira and a Pull Request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/659
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> Yep, I would say: Move ahead :-)
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek
> wrote:
>
>> So I gather I should go forward with this? If no-one obj
Yep, I would say: Move ahead :-)
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> So I gather I should go forward with this? If no-one objects I will
> open a Jira and work on this.
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Aljoscha Krettek
> wrote:
> > Yes, because the handling of punctuati
So I gather I should go forward with this? If no-one objects I will
open a Jira and work on this.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> Yes, because the handling of punctuations depends on the operator: A
> MapOperator can just forward them while a windowed join or reduce can
Yes, because the handling of punctuations depends on the operator: A
MapOperator can just forward them while a windowed join or reduce can
only forward them after emitting the correct windows or results.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Paris Carbone wrote:
> By watermark handling I meant making p
By watermark handling I meant making punctuations explicit and
forwarding/modifying them at the operator level. I think this is clear so far.
> On 05 May 2015, at 15:41, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>
> There is no watermark handling yet. :D
>
> But this would enable me to do this.
>
> On Tue, May
Does the operator have to know about barriers actually?
My first intuition would be that the operator reacts to a barrier the same
way as to a punctuation/watermark.
The outside driver handles the barriers as follows
1) Punctuate operator
2) Draw operator state snapshot
3) send output barriers
I agree with Gyula on this one. Barriers should better not be exposed to the
operator. They are system events for state management. Apart from that,
watermark handling seems to be on a right track, I like it so far.
> On 05 May 2015, at 15:26, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>
> I don't know, I just p
There is no watermark handling yet. :D
But this would enable me to do this.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Paris Carbone wrote:
> I agree with Gyula on this one. Barriers should better not be exposed to the
> operator. They are system events for state management. Apart from that,
> watermark
oops, meant "iterators" :-)
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> What do you mean by "losing iterations"?
>
> For the pros and cons:
>
> Cons: I can't think of any, since most of the operators are chainable
> already and already behave like a collector.
>
> Pros:
> - Unifie
Yes, we dont need that method there. Snapshots are handled as a call to the
streamtask from the input reader.
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> I don't know, I just put that there because other people are working
> on the checkpointing/barrier thing. So there would need to be so
I don't know, I just put that there because other people are working
on the checkpointing/barrier thing. So there would need to be some
functionality there at some point.
Or maybe it is not required there and can be handled in the
StreamTask. Others might know this better than I do right now.
On
What would the processBarrier method do?
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> I'm using the term punctuation and watermark interchangeably here
> because for practical purposes they do the same thing. I'm not sure
> what you meant with your comment about those.
>
> For the Operator
I'm using the term punctuation and watermark interchangeably here
because for practical purposes they do the same thing. I'm not sure
what you meant with your comment about those.
For the Operator interface I'm thinking about something like this:
abstract class OneInputStreamOperator {
publi
I think this a good idea in general. I would try to minimize the methods we
include and make the ones that we keep very concrete. For instance i would
not have the receive barrier method as that is handled on a totally
different level already. And instead of punctuation I would directly add a
metho
What do you mean by "losing iterations"?
For the pros and cons:
Cons: I can't think of any, since most of the operators are chainable
already and already behave like a collector.
Pros:
- Unified model for operators, chainable operators don't have to
worry about input iterators and the collect i
Can you give us a rough idea of the pros and cons? Do we lose some
functionality by getting rid of iterations?
Kostas
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> while working on introducing source-assigned timestamps into streaming
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/br
Hi Folks,
while working on introducing source-assigned timestamps into streaming
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1967) I thought about how
the punctuations (low watermarks) can be pushed through the system.
The problem is, that operators can have two ways of getting input: 1.
They read
17 matches
Mail list logo
