The JobConfig is a system level config. Would be nice to not expose them to the user-level unless necessary.
What about using the ExecutionConfig, where you can add shared user-level parameters? On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the input. > > However, I doubt that a member variable approach is feasible, because > when the Storm topology is translated into a Flink program (in > `FlinkBuilder.createTopology()`) the Storm configuration is not > available yet. And adding the configuration later to each operator would > be cumbersome. > > If there are no better ideas, I guess the current usage of > JobConfiguration is the best way to handle it (because extending > TaskConfiguration seems to be no option) > > -Matthias > > On 09/06/2015 10:51 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > Hi, > > I think the possibility to use a Configuration object is a legacy from > the > > past where the API was a bit closer to how Hadoop works. In my opinion > this > > is not necessary anymore since User Code objects can just contain > > configuration settings in fields. > > > > The feature for the Storm API could probably be implemented by just > storing > > a Configuration object in the user code function. > > > > Regards, > > Aljoscha > > > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 at 18:29 Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I observed, that DataSet API offers a nice way to configure > >> UDF-Operators by providing the method ".withParameters()". However, > >> Streaming API does not offer such a method. > >> > >> For a current PR (https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1046) this > >> feature would be very helpful. > >> > >> As a workaround, PR #1046 can also be finished using JobConfiguration. > >> However, this seems to be somewhat unnatural. Furthermore, I think that > >> this feature would be nice to have in general. What do you think about > it? > >> > >> If we introduce this feature, we can either open a new JIRA of just > >> include it into the current PR #1046. What would be the better way? > >> > >> > >> -Matthias > >> > >> > > > >
