Is the suggestion that operators implement the partitioner interface and pass-through the calls to the partitioner implementation set as a property or is it something else?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Gaurav Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > I also think property works better because as Thomas mentioned it can be > configured like any other operator component. > > Thanks > - Gaurav > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to 'set > > number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up > > Stateless Partitioner as default? > > > > Thanks, > > Isha > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I actually think a property works better as it will let you configure > the > >> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka consumer. > >> > >> -- > >> sent from mobile > >> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to have > an > >>> annotation > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call > >> to > >>>> the partitioner implementation? > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni < > >> [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Idea for an annotation maybe? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator > >> and > >>>>> still > >>>>>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with > >> specifying > >>> it > >>>>>> from application) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Siyuan > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
