Please go ahead and answer it. I actually thought the the methods works as intended, too. But the SO person claims not to get the correct information (see the comments):
> Are you sure that it returns executor IDs and not task IDs? Do you
have different number of executors than tasks? – Matthias J. Sax
> yes,i set parallelism to 5,setTaskNumber(10)..it only return 5 taskid
Not sure what he/she is doing wrong...
-Matthias
On 12/16/2015 03:20 PM, Bobby Evans wrote:
> I forgot to add if you want me to pop on the stack overflow and answer it
> myself I can. I just don't want to step on your toes if you have started.
> - Bobby
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:17 AM, Bobby Evans
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> It should include all of the tasks, not the executors.
> common/storm-task-info pulls out the task ids from the executor ids, before
> doing a reverse map and sorting it to put it in the TopologyContext. An
> executor ID is a range of task IDs. [1,5] indicates this executor handles
> tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Most of the time an executor ID is something like [1,1]
> for task 1. The code in storm-task-info expands it out.
> - Bobby
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 6:52 AM, Matthias J. Sax
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> today, the above question appeared on SO:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34309189/how-to-get-the-task-number-and-id-not-the-executor-in-storm
>
> The problem is, that
>
> TopologyContext.getComponentTasks(<componentId>)
>
> returns the IDs of the executors (and not the tasks). The name of the
> method is not chooses very good -- I guess this dates back to the time
> before the separation of tasks and executors...
>
> My question is now:
>
> - do tasks actually have an ID?
> - if yes, can those IDs be retrieved?
> - can we get at least the number of tasks per operator somehow?
> - should the above method get renamed?
>
> As the number of tasks is fix, one could of course collect this
> information an pass it via the Config to
> StormSubmitter.submitTopology(...). However, this is quite a work-around.
>
> Please let me know what you think about it.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
