[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17142100#comment-17142100
]
Jark Wu edited comment on FLINK-16835 at 6/22/20, 2:30 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm fine wht current configuration keys, they may happen in optimizer and
runtime, except the state ttl which should be prefixed with {{table.exec}}.
Regarding to {{table.exec.state.ttl}}, yes, it defines the min retention and
the max retention can be derived from it (by 1.5x?) We can add a explain for
the multiplier in documentation before we fully switch to {{StateTtlConfig}}.
What do you think?
was (Author: jark):
I'm fine wht current configuration keys, they may happen in optimizer and
runtime, except the state ttl which should be prefixed with {{table.exec}}.
Regarding to {{table.exec.state.ttl}}, yes, it defines the min retention and
teh max retention can be derived from it (by 1.5x?) We can add a explain for
the multiplier in documentation before we fully switch to {{StateTtlConfig}}.
What do you think?
> Replace TableConfig with Configuration
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-16835
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16835
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Table SQL / API
> Reporter: Timo Walther
> Priority: Major
>
> In order to allow reading and writing of configuration from a file or
> string-based properties. We should consider removing {{TableConfig}} and
> fully rely on a Configuration-based object with {{ConfigOptions}}.
> This effort was partially already started which is why
> {{TableConfig.getConfiguration}} exists.
> However, we should clarify if we would like to have control and traceability
> over layered configurations such as {{flink-conf,yaml <
> StreamExecutionEnvironment < TableEnvironment < Query}}. Maybe the
> {{Configuration}} class is not the right abstraction for this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
