[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2572?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16083101#comment-16083101
]
Dmitry Demeshchuk commented on BEAM-2572:
-----------------------------------------
[~robertwb]: yes, by "hidden" I meant not exposing some options in the UI
(similar to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2492)
To your first comment, I don't fully understand if "construction" means
construction of each PTransform object, or whether it means construction of the
whole pipeline (meaning, applying each PTransform to it). My initial idea was
to somehow pass the pipeline options during the application phase.
Also, I like your point about having different credentials for different
stages, but in that case I'd rather supply credentials exactly at construction
time to each individual PTransform. For example, `{{p |
beam.io.aws.ReadFromDynamoDB(query='...', credentials=...)}}. However, as
multiple people pointed out before, this will be poorly compatible with the
filesystems approach.
Maybe the answer here is to have filesystems that require explicit
authentication use a different interface, not {{ReadFromText}} and
{{WriteToText}}?
> Implement an S3 filesystem for Python SDK
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-2572
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2572
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: sdk-py
> Reporter: Dmitry Demeshchuk
> Assignee: Ahmet Altay
> Priority: Minor
>
> There are two paths worth exploring, to my understanding:
> 1. Sticking to the HDFS-based approach (like it's done in Java).
> 2. Using boto/boto3 for accessing S3 through its common API endpoints.
> I personally prefer the second approach, for a few reasons:
> 1. In real life, HDFS and S3 have different consistency guarantees, therefore
> their behaviors may contradict each other in some edge cases (say, we write
> something to S3, but it's not immediately accessible for reading from another
> end).
> 2. There are other AWS-based sources and sinks we may want to create in the
> future: DynamoDB, Kinesis, SQS, etc.
> 3. boto3 already provides somewhat good logic for basic things like
> reattempting.
> Whatever path we choose, there's another problem related to this: we
> currently cannot pass any global settings (say, pipeline options, or just an
> arbitrary kwarg) to a filesystem. Because of that, we'd have to setup the
> runner nodes to have AWS keys set up in the environment, which is not trivial
> to achieve and doesn't look too clean either (I'd rather see one single place
> for configuring the runner options).
> Also, it's worth mentioning that I already have a janky S3 filesystem
> implementation that only supports DirectRunner at the moment (because of the
> previous paragraph). I'm perfectly fine finishing it myself, with some
> guidance from the maintainers.
> Where should I move on from here, and whose input should I be looking for?
> Thanks!
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
