[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2837?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15024785#comment-15024785
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-2837:
---------------------------------------
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1398#discussion_r45758926
--- Diff:
flink-contrib/flink-storm/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/storm/wrappers/WrapperSetupHelperTest.java
---
@@ -180,8 +178,6 @@ public void testCreateTopologyContext() {
builder.setBolt("bolt2", (IRichBolt) operators.get("bolt2"),
dops.get("bolt2")).allGrouping("spout2");
builder.setBolt("sink", (IRichBolt) operators.get("sink"),
dops.get("sink"))
.shuffleGrouping("bolt1",
TestDummyBolt.groupingStreamId)
- .shuffleGrouping("bolt1",
TestDummyBolt.shuffleStreamId)
- .shuffleGrouping("bolt2",
TestDummyBolt.groupingStreamId)
.shuffleGrouping("bolt2",
TestDummyBolt.shuffleStreamId);
--- End diff --
Don't understand me wrong. I don't want to discard your work! And I believe
that you did not intent do get a "messy" PR. But that's the current state.
I think we can refine and merge it. But it does not resolve FLINK-2837 even
if it improves on it. I would also assume, that your union code will be
reworked heavily later on... Not sure about your tuple meta information code.
Need to have a look in detail. That is the reason why I had the idea to apply
the discussed API changes only in a single PR. But if this is too complex, we
should just carry on with this PR.
Btw: even if the JIRA is quite old it is not assigned to you; thus you
should have ask about it. You did the same with FLINK-2837 which was assigned
to me, too -- I did not work in it yet so a assigned it to you (I thought as
you did have the union code together with the API changes, that should be fine).
Additionally, the reason I just assigned it to you was, that FLINK-2837 is
actually a requirement for FLINK-2721. That is why I stopped working on it back
than, but did not have time to fix FLINK-2837 either. I did not assume that you
tackle the join-case which does require the tuple meta info... A regular union
does not require it.
Anyway. Just let us get this PR done. :)
> FlinkTopologyBuilder cannot handle multiple input streams
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-2837
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2837
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Storm Compatibility
> Reporter: Matthias J. Sax
> Assignee: Maximilian Michels
>
> FlinkTopologyBuilder cannot handle multiple input streams correctly. Instead
> of union the incoming streams, it replicates the consuming bolt and each
> (logical) instance processes one of the input streams.
> For example:
> {noformat}
> final FlinkTopologyBuilder builder = new FlinkTopologyBuilder();
> builder.setSpout(spoutId1, new FiniteRandomSpout(0, 10));
> builder.setSpout(spoutId2, new FiniteRandomSpout(1, 8));
> builder.setSpout(spoutId3, new FiniteRandomSpout(2, 13));
> builder.setBolt(boltId, new MergerBolt())
> .shuffleGrouping(spoutId1)
> .shuffleGrouping(spoutId2)
> .shuffleGrouping(spoutId3);
> builder.setBolt("sink", new BoltPrintSink(new SimpleOutputFormatter()))
> .shuffleGrouping(boltId);
> {noformat}
> will only print the data from a single source instead of all sources.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
