I was thinking from more of the view that module and operator can share a same name in the DAG. In this case it is necessary to distinguish between operator and module. If we don't want this behavior, and if its ok to use operator keyword to set module property then we can treat them as operators while setting properties, In fact, I think by doing this we could reuse property setting code for operator.
- Tushar. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it necessary to distinguish modules from operators when setting modules > properties? Unless it is necessary to set module internal operator > properties it may be better to treat modules the same way as operators. > > Thank you, > > Vlad > > > On 10/12/15 04:40, Tushar Gosavi wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> As part of module support we will allow specifying module properties >> through >> external configuration files. The format will be similar to the operator, >> instead of operator keyword we will use module keyword for properties >> on module. >> >> dt.application.<appname>.module.<modulename>.prop.<propertyname>=<value> >> dt.application.<appname>.module.<modulename>.<propertyname>=<value> >> dt.module.<modulename>.prop.<propertyname>=<value> >> dt.module.<modulename>.<propertyname>=<value> >> >> >> Setting attribute on the module. >> dt.application.<appname>.module.<modulename>.attr.<moduleattr>=<value> >> dt.module.<modulename>.attr.<moduleattr>=<value> >> >> There are no module attributes defined now, but we will add them in future >> like >> whether to group operators during parallel partitioning. >> >> Setting attribute on a module port. >> dt.module.<modulename>.port.<portname>.attr.<attributename> >> >> The port attributes will be transferred to the internal operator port >> where >> it is >> mapped to. >> >> Please let us know, If we are missing something, or some syntax need >> changes. >> >> Regards, >> - Tushar. >> >> >
