i created a Jira for this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-38708
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 2:04 PM Hao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Shengkai, > > > process them together, and complete the future objects sequentially as > they finish > > The batch api Rahul proposed is [1] which sends batch request from file, > return an id and we need to poll the id for results. The important part is > it can take 24 hours to finish. So Rahua is proposing to just send the > result id to downstream. > > [1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/batch > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 8:35 AM Rahul Bhattacharya <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Shengkai, > > so i am understanding we will go with option 1 and send the batchid > > downstream to do whatever the user needs to do with the batchids? > > > > i also in the opinion that option 1 is a better option for now than > option > > 2. > > Based on a parameter setting we should batch n records , create a > > jsonl file and post it to the LLM batch api. > > The LLM will immediately return the batch id which we can just send it > > downstream. this implementation will be stateless and really simple to > > implement > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 4:18 AM Shengkai Fang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi. Rahul > > > > > > First, I believe we don't need to modify the framework. Instead, we can > > > have the async predict function collect records in batches, process > them > > > together, and complete the future objects sequentially as they finish. > > This > > > approach allows us to move forward quickly. > > > > > > Second, I have concerns about introducing state or external storage. On > > one > > > hand, the current design is stateless, and transitioning to a stateful > > > architecture would require significant refactoring. On the other hand, > I > > > don't see clear advantages to storing batch IDs in state, since we > cannot > > > guarantee that elements will arrive in the same order after restoring > > from > > > a checkpoint. For example, if the ML predictor receives elements e1, > e2, > > e3 > > > in the first run, it might receive e2, e3, e1 after recovery. With a > > batch > > > size of 2, we wouldn't be able to reuse the in-flight requests > > effectively. > > > > > > Finally, I suggest we leverage the IOManager to handle JSON file > > > management. > > > > > > Best, > > > Shengkai > > > > > > > > > Rahul Bhattacharya <[email protected]> 于2025年11月11日周二 09:03写道： > > > > > > > Hi Hao > > > > For option 2 the guarantees like exactly once and other things are > not > > > > guaranteed as it’s not in the same flink process > > > > > > > > The flink process finishes after the submission and getting batchids > > > which > > > > it sends downstream > > > > > > > > There has to be another process(doesn’t have to be flink) which > takes > > > > these batchids and polls the OpenAI endpoint for status completed. > > > > > > > > Once it gets completed it downloads the results and sends downstream > > > > > > > > This secondary process is on client discretion , for Kafka probably a > > > http > > > > sink connector or Kafka consumer > > > > > > > > Thanks And Regards > > > > Rahul > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 6:45 PM Hao Li <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Rahul, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal. From some offline discussion, the endpoint > > you > > > > > have in mind to support is OpenAI batch API [1]. The doc states > that > > > > "Each > > > > > batch completes within 24 hours (and often more quickly)". With > this > > > > > context, I have some questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1. For design option 1, does the operator always wait for batch > > > response > > > > > until processing next batch? This can take 24 hours which isn't > > > feasible > > > > > for streaming job I think. > > > > > > > > > > 2. For design option 2, why it loses exact-once and have higher > > latency > > > > > compared to 1? > > > > > > > > > > 3. Also for the public interface section, are the parameters in > > > > > `ml_predict` config or in options when `create model`? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Hao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/batch/batch-api > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:19 AM Asimansu Bera < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > This proposal is needed for optimizing network calls and > processing > > > > asyc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Asimansu > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 4:04 AM Shengkai Fang <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Rahul. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for this proposal. However, due to my current workload, I'll > > > need > > > > > > until > > > > > > > the end of this week to review it thoroughly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Shengkai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rahul Bhattacharya <[email protected]> 于2025年11月9日周日 > 13:08写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi , > > > > > > > > i have created a draft FLIP for it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U-eSuKwi5vIgAPt6ZBvb-RcbcRJiRy0e/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know your thoughts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > Rahul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 5:54 PM Rahul Bhattacharya < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I actually thought of reworking my previous response. I > want > > > the > > > > > > table > > > > > > > > api > > > > > > > > > to create jsonl files and call openai/claude batch apis. > > > > > > > > > The implementation I am doing is going to batch the records > > > into > > > > a > > > > > > file > > > > > > > > > and call the api with the file and then continuously poll > the > > > > > repose > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > the status of the batch and then use that to write the > > response > > > > > > > records. > > > > > > > > > The ML_Predict in its current form is not usable as people > > are > > > > not > > > > > > > > looking > > > > > > > > > for synchronous response which is twice as expensive as the > > > > > > > asynchronous > > > > > > > > > response. > > > > > > > > > let me know you thoughts and i can create a FLIP for it > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 3:14 PM Rahul Bhattacharya < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Flink Community, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I'm interested in contributing an enhancement to Apache > > > Flink's > > > > > > > > >> ML_PREDICT > > > > > > > > >> functionality for LLM interactions. I'd like to gauge > > > community > > > > > > > interest > > > > > > > > >> and get > > > > > > > > >> early feedback before proceeding with detailed design or a > > > FLIP. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Problem Statement > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Currently, when using Flink SQL's ML_PREDICT with LLM > > > endpoints, > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > >> record > > > > > > > > >> triggers an individual API call. For a stream processing > > 1000 > > > > > > > > >> records/second, > > > > > > > > >> this results in: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> - **1000 separate API calls per second** > > > > > > > > >> - **High latency**: Each call has network overhead + API > > > > > processing > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> - **High cost**: Most LLM providers charge per token, and > > lack > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> batching means > > > > > > > > >> no cost optimization > > > > > > > > >> - **Rate limiting issues**: Hitting provider rate limits > > > quickly > > > > > > > > >> - **Poor throughput**: API calls are serialized per record > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Current Behavior (Inefficient) > > > > > > > > >> ```sql > > > > > > > > >> -- This makes 10 individual API calls > > > > > > > > >> SELECT id, ML_PREDICT('llm_model', text) as result > > > > > > > > >> FROM (VALUES > > > > > > > > >> (1, 'text1'), (2, 'text2'), ..., (10, 'text10') > > > > > > > > >> ) AS t(id, text); > > > > > > > > >> ``` > > > > > > > > >> **Result**: 10 separate HTTP requests, 10x latency, 10x > > > overhead > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Proposed Solution: Application-Level Batching with > Prompt > > > > > > > Engineering > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Since most LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic Claude, etc.) don't > > > > provide > > > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > >> batch > > > > > > > > >> endpoints, we propose implementing batching at the > > application > > > > > level > > > > > > > by: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1. **Accumulating N records** into a single batch > > > > > > > > >> 2. **Injecting records into a structured prompt** that > > > instructs > > > > > the > > > > > > > LLM > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > >> process multiple items > > > > > > > > >> 3. **Parsing structured responses** to extract results for > > > each > > > > > > record > > > > > > > > >> 4. **Emitting individual results** back to the Flink > > pipeline > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### How It Works > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Step 1: Batch Accumulation** > > > > > > > > >> Collect up to `batch.size` records or wait up to ` > > > > > batch.timeout.ms` > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Step 2: Prompt Construction** > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> System: You are a sentiment analyzer. Process each item > and > > > > > respond > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> JSON. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> User: Analyze the sentiment of these texts. Return a JSON > > > array > > > > > with > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > >> object per input containing "index" and "sentiment" > fields. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Input 1: "This product is amazing!" Input 2: "Terrible > > > > experience, > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > >> disappointed" Input 3: "It's okay, nothing special" ... > > Input > > > > 10: > > > > > > > "Best > > > > > > > > >> purchase ever!" > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Respond with: [{"index": 1, "sentiment": "..."}, {"index": > > 2, > > > > > > > > >> "sentiment": "..."}, ...] > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Step 3: Response Parsing** > > > > > > > > >> ```json > > > > > > > > >> [ > > > > > > > > >> {"index": 1, "sentiment": "positive"}, > > > > > > > > >> {"index": 2, "sentiment": "negative"}, > > > > > > > > >> {"index": 3, "sentiment": "neutral"}, > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > >> {"index": 10, "sentiment": "positive"} > > > > > > > > >> ] > > > > > > > > >> ``` > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Step 4: Result Distribution** > > > > > > > > >> Parse JSON and emit individual results back to > corresponding > > > > > records > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Model Configuration (Defaults) > > > > > > > > >> ```sql > > > > > > > > >> CREATE MODEL llm_sentiment WITH ( > > > > > > > > >> 'provider' = 'openai', > > > > > > > > >> 'model' = 'gpt-4', > > > > > > > > >> 'api_key' = '${API_KEY}', > > > > > > > > >> 'batch.size' = '20', > > > > > > > > >> 'batch.timeout.ms' = '1000', > > > > > > > > >> 'system.prompt' = 'You are a sentiment analyzer. > Always > > > > > respond > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> valid JSON.', > > > > > > > > >> 'batch.prompt.template' = 'Analyze sentiment for these > > > > texts. > > > > > > > Return > > > > > > > > >> JSON array: [{"index": <n>, "sentiment": > > > > > > > > "<positive|negative|neutral>"}]', > > > > > > > > >> 'response.format' = 'json', > > > > > > > > >> 'response.path' = '$[*]', -- JSONPath to extract > array > > of > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > >> 'response.index.field' = 'index', -- Field containing > > > > record > > > > > > > index > > > > > > > > >> 'response.value.field' = 'sentiment' -- Field > > containing > > > > > result > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > >> ``` > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Query Usage (Use Defaults) > > > > > > > > >> ```sql > > > > > > > > >> -- Uses batch_size=20 from model definition > > > > > > > > >> SELECT id, text, ML_PREDICT('llm_sentiment', text) as > > > sentiment > > > > > > > > >> FROM customer_reviews; > > > > > > > > >> ``` > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Query Usage (Override for Custom Analysis) > > > > > > > > >> ```sql > > > > > > > > >> -- Override prompt and batch size for different use case > > > > > > > > >> SELECT id, text, ML_PREDICT('llm_sentiment', text, > > > > > > > > >> MAP['batch.size', '50', > > > > > > > > >> 'batch.prompt.template', 'Extract key entities. > > Return > > > > > JSON: > > > > > > > > >> [{"index": <n>, "entities": [...]}]', > > > > > > > > >> 'response.value.field', 'entities']) as entities > > > > > > > > >> FROM documents; > > > > > > > > >> ``` > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Performance and Cost Impact > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Example: Processing 10,000 customer reviews > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Current (unbatched)**: > > > > > > > > >> - 10,000 API calls > > > > > > > > >> - ~10,000 x 200ms latency = 2,000 seconds total processing > > > time > > > > > > > > >> (serialized) > > > > > > > > >> - ~10,000 x $0.002 = $20 in API costs > > > > > > > > >> - High rate limit pressure > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **With batching (batch_size=20)**: > > > > > > > > >> - 500 API calls (10,000 / 20) > > > > > > > > >> - ~500 x 300ms latency = 150 seconds total processing time > > > > > > > > >> - ~500 x $0.006 = $3 in API costs (slightly higher per > call > > > due > > > > to > > > > > > > > larger > > > > > > > > >> prompts, > > > > > > > > >> but still 85% cheaper overall) > > > > > > > > >> - **20x fewer API calls** > > > > > > > > >> - **13x faster processing** > > > > > > > > >> - **85% cost reduction** > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Proposed Implementation > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Configuration Parameters > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Model-level (defaults)**: > > > > > > > > >> - `batch.size`: Maximum records per batch (default: 1 for > > > > backward > > > > > > > > >> compatibility) > > > > > > > > >> - `batch.timeout.ms`: Max time to wait before flushing > > > > incomplete > > > > > > > batch > > > > > > > > >> (default: 1000ms) > > > > > > > > >> - `system.prompt`: System-level instruction for the LLM > > > > > > > > >> - `batch.prompt.template`: Template explaining how to > > process > > > > > > batched > > > > > > > > >> inputs > > > > > > > > >> - `response.format`: Expected response format ('json', > > 'xml', > > > > > > > > 'delimited') > > > > > > > > >> - `response.path`: JSONPath or XPath to extract results > > array > > > > > > > > >> - `response.index.field`: Field name containing the record > > > index > > > > > > > > >> - `response.value.field`: Field name containing the actual > > > > result > > > > > > > > >> - `max.retries`: Retry attempts for failed batches > (default: > > > 3) > > > > > > > > >> - `request.timeout.ms`: Timeout for API calls (default: > > > > 30000ms) > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> **Query-level (overrides)**: > > > > > > > > >> - Any of the above can be overridden via MAP parameter in > > > > > ML_PREDICT > > > > > > > > >> - Per-query customization for different analysis tasks > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Key Features > > > > > > > > >> 1. **Prompt injection**: Automatically construct batch > > prompts > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> indexed inputs > > > > > > > > >> 2. **Structured response parsing**: Support JSON, XML, or > > > > > delimited > > > > > > > > >> formats > > > > > > > > >> 3. **Index tracking**: Maintain record-to-result mapping > > > through > > > > > the > > > > > > > > batch > > > > > > > > >> 4. **Error handling**: Handle parsing failures, missing > > > indices, > > > > > > > > >> malformed responses > > > > > > > > >> 5. **Fallback to individual calls**: If batch fails, > > > optionally > > > > > > retry > > > > > > > > >> records individually > > > > > > > > >> 6. **Provider-agnostic**: Works with any LLM API (OpenAI, > > > > > Anthropic, > > > > > > > > >> Azure, self-hosted) > > > > > > > > >> 7. **Async processing**: Non-blocking batch requests > > > > > > > > >> 8. **Back-pressure**: Proper flow control when API is slow > > > > > > > > >> 9. **Backward compatible**: batch.size=1 maintains current > > > > > behavior > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Technical Approach > > > > > > > > >> - Extend existing ML_PREDICT infrastructure > > > > > > > > >> - Add batching buffer in the ML_PREDICT operator > > > > > > > > >> - Implement prompt template engine for batch construction: > > > > > > > > >> - Inject record index + content into template > > > > > > > > >> - Support various templating formats (JSON, XML, plain > > text) > > > > > > > > >> - Implement response parser: > > > > > > > > >> - Extract structured data (JSONPath, XPath, regex) > > > > > > > > >> - Map results back to original records by index > > > > > > > > >> - Handle missing or malformed responses > > > > > > > > >> - Maintain record ordering and error attribution > > > > > > > > >> - Support parameter override mechanism in ML_PREDICT > > function > > > > > > > signature > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ### Response Parsing Strategy > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The implementation must handle: > > > > > > > > >> 1. **Successful batch response**: Parse and distribute > > results > > > > > > > > >> 2. **Partial failure**: Some records missing from > response → > > > > emit > > > > > > > errors > > > > > > > > >> for those > > > > > > > > >> 3. **Complete parse failure**: Optionally fallback to > > > individual > > > > > > calls > > > > > > > > >> 4. **Index mismatch**: Response indices don't match input > → > > > log > > > > > > > warning > > > > > > > > >> and best-effort match > > > > > > > > >> 5. **Malformed JSON**: Retry with error handling > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Example error handling: > > > > > > > > >> ```sql > > > > > > > > >> -- Records that fail parsing get null results with error > > > > metadata > > > > > > > > >> SELECT > > > > > > > > >> id, > > > > > > > > >> text, > > > > > > > > >> result.value as sentiment, > > > > > > > > >> result.error as error_msg > > > > > > > > >> FROM source_table, > > > > > > > > >> LATERAL TABLE(ML_PREDICT('llm_sentiment', text)); > > > > > > > > >> ``` > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Limitations and Considerations > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1. **LLM instruction following**: Depends on model's > ability > > > to > > > > > > follow > > > > > > > > >> structured > > > > > > > > >> output instructions. GPT-4 and Claude are reliable; > older > > > > > models > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > >> struggle. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2. **Prompt size limits**: Batching too many records may > > > exceed > > > > > > > context > > > > > > > > >> windows > > > > > > > > >> - GPT-4: ~8K tokens input limit > > > > > > > > >> - Claude: ~200K tokens but practical batches smaller > > > > > > > > >> - Need configurable max batch size based on average > > record > > > > > length > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 3. **Token cost trade-off**: Larger batches mean: > > > > > > > > >> - Fewer API calls (good) > > > > > > > > >> - But larger prompts with instructions/formatting > (slight > > > > > > overhead) > > > > > > > > >> - Net savings still 80-90% in practice > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 4. **Parsing reliability**: Small risk of malformed > > responses > > > > > > > > >> - Mitigated by: clear instructions, JSON mode (GPT-4), > > > retry > > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > >> - Fallback to individual calls if batch parsing fails > > > > > repeatedly > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 5. **Latency characteristics**: > > > > > > > > >> - Individual records see slightly higher latency > (waiting > > > for > > > > > > > batch) > > > > > > > > >> - Overall throughput dramatically improved > > > > > > > > >> - Use `batch.timeout.ms` to balance latency vs > > throughput > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Future Extensions > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> This batching architecture would support: > > > > > > > > >> 1. **Stateful chat sessions**: Batch multiple turns of a > > > > > > conversation > > > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > > > >> maintained history per session key > > > > > > > > >> 2. **Embedding generation**: Some providers (OpenAI) do > have > > > > batch > > > > > > > > >> embedding APIs > > > > > > > > >> 3. **Multi-modal batching**: Batch image + text processing > > > with > > > > > > > > >> structured outputs > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Questions for the Community > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1. **Architecture**: Should this extend ML_PREDICT or be a > > new > > > > > > > function? > > > > > > > > >> (I propose extending ML_PREDICT for backward > > compatibility) > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2. **FLIP Required?**: Does this enhancement warrant a > FLIP? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 3. **Existing Work**: Is anyone working on batching for > > > > ML_PREDICT > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > >> similar > > > > > > > > >> functionality? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 4. **Prompt Template Engine**: Should we: > > > > > > > > >> - Build a custom template engine? > > > > > > > > >> - Use existing library (e.g., StringTemplate, > Mustache)? > > > > > > > > >> - Keep it simple with String.format initially? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 5. **Response Parsing**: Preferred approach: > > > > > > > > >> - JSONPath library (flexible but adds dependency) > > > > > > > > >> - Simple JSON parsing with field names > > > > > > > > >> - Pluggable parser interface for extensibility? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 6. **Error Handling**: If parsing fails for entire batch: > > > > > > > > >> - Fail all records in batch? > > > > > > > > >> - Retry batch once more? > > > > > > > > >> - Fallback to individual calls (with circuit breaker)? > > > > > > > > >> - Make strategy configurable? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 7. **Batch Assembly**: Should batching happen: > > > > > > > > >> - Per parallel instance (each task maintains its own > > > batch)? > > > > > > > > >> - Globally coordinated (shuffle to batch coordinator)? > > > > > > > > >> - I propose per-instance for simplicity and lower > latency > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 8. **Compatibility**: Default batch.size=1 to maintain > > current > > > > > > > behavior, > > > > > > > > >> users > > > > > > > > >> opt-in to batching? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Why This Matters > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> LLM inference is becoming a critical part of real-time > data > > > > > > pipelines. > > > > > > > > >> Without > > > > > > > > >> batching: > > > > > > > > >> - Users face prohibitive costs for high-throughput > workloads > > > > > > > > >> - Rate limits block production deployments > > > > > > > > >> - Latency makes real-time processing impractical > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> While LLM providers don't offer native batch APIs, > > > > > application-level > > > > > > > > >> batching > > > > > > > > >> through prompt engineering is a proven pattern used in > > > > production > > > > > by > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > >> organizations. This proposal brings that capability > natively > > > > into > > > > > > > Flink. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The hybrid configuration approach provides: > > > > > > > > >> - **Sensible defaults** for common use cases (sentiment > > > > analysis, > > > > > > > > >> classification) > > > > > > > > >> - **Flexibility** to customize prompts and parsing for > > > specific > > > > > > needs > > > > > > > > >> - **Easy migration** for existing queries (batch.size=1 > > > default) > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ## Next Steps > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> If there's interest from the community, I'm happy to: > > > > > > > > >> 1. Prepare a detailed design document with prompt > templates > > > and > > > > > > > parsing > > > > > > > > >> examples > > > > > > > > >> 2. Create a JIRA ticket > > > > > > > > >> 3. Develop a prototype demonstrating the batching and > > parsing > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > >> 4. Write a FLIP if required > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback and guidance on how best > to > > > > > > > proceed!-- > > > > > > > > >> Thanks And Regards > > > > > > > > >> Rahul > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Thanks And Regards > > > > > > > > > Rahul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Thanks And Regards > > > > > > > > Rahul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks And Regards > > Rahul > > > -- Thanks And Regards Rahul
