Why aren't we adding a new method "printLocal()" which is doing the local printing? That would not break any existing code.
How much work would it be to implement this "properly" without piggybacking the accumulators? I assume we would need to write the data to one or more partitions and request the partitions from the client JVM. I also assume that we have the code in place now to do it like this. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 Very nice addition. > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Sounds good, Max, let's to this in one fix. > > > > > > We can maintain a counter in the ExecutionEnvironment that tracks how > > many > > > executions have happened. > > > In case of no prior execution, simply warn that no sinks are defined. > > > In case a prior execution happened, point out that nothing new is > pending > > > execution. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree, print should print on the client. However, let's introduce > > some > > > > big hint in the error message in case of a second execute() that this > > > error > > > > may arise from a previous execution. > > > > > > > > Instead of "No sinks defined", let's print "The Flink job didn't > > contain > > > > any sinks. This may be because the sinks were already executed. If > you > > > > executed the print() method on a DataSet before, the job would have > > > already > > > > been executed. In this case, remove the call of execute() until you > > have > > > > defined further sinks". > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 for the breaking change > > > > > > > > > > 2015-04-28 13:18 GMT+02:00 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr 2015, at 12:31, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the breaking change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not to this any more than necessary, bu this is a good > > > case... > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
