Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Jingsong Li
Sorry for mistake, I proposal: connector: 'filesystem' path: '...' format: 'json' format.option: option1: '...' option2: '...' option3: '...' And I think most of cases, users just need configure 'format' key, we should make it convenient for them. There is no big problem in making fo

Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Kurt Young
IIUC FLIP-122 already delegate the responsibility for designing and parsing connector properties to connector developers. So frankly speaking, no matter which style we choose, there is no strong guarantee for either of these. So it's also possible that developers can choose a totally different way

Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Jingsong Li
Thanks Timo for staring the discussion. I am +1 for "format: 'json'". Take a look to Dawid's yaml case: connector: 'filesystem' path: '...' format: 'json' format: option1: '...' option2: '...' option3: '...' Is this work? According to my understanding, 'format' key is the attribute o

Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Benchao Li
Thanks Timo for staring the discussion. Generally I like the idea to keep the config align with a standard like json/yaml. >From the user's perspective, I don't use table configs from a config file like yaml or json for now, And it's ok to change it to yaml like style. Actually we didn't know tha

Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Dawid Wysakowicz
Hi all, I also wanted to share my opinion. When talking about a ConfigOption hierarchy we use for configuring Flink cluster I would be a strong advocate for keeping a yaml/hocon/json/... compatible style. Those options are primarily read from a file and thus should at least try to follow common p

Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Flavio Pompermaier
Personally I don't have any preference here. Compliance wih standard YAML parser is probably more important On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:10 PM Jark Wu wrote: > From a user's perspective, I prefer the shorter one "format=json", because > it's more concise and straightforward. The "kind" is redundan

Re: [DISCUSS] Hierarchies in ConfigOption

2020-04-29 Thread Jark Wu
>From a user's perspective, I prefer the shorter one "format=json", because it's more concise and straightforward. The "kind" is redundant for users. Is there a real case requires to represent the configuration in JSON style? As far as I can see, I don't see such requirement, and everything works f