We used to have that but the current way is better only because StatelessPartitioner does not always work as a good default.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Isha Arkatkar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Actually, I was thinking some operator attribute like this in populateDag: > dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.NUM_PARTITIONS, 2); > > which could translate internally to: > dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.PARTITIONER, new > StatelessPartitioner<GenericTestOperator>(2)); > > But just setting number of partitions would be easier in populateDag and > user does not need to worry about which partitioner to use. > > Thanks, > Isha > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
