Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1831#issuecomment-200945681
I like @aljoscha's idea to separate more explicitly the user state access
and it's implementation. Having an accessor would also allow us to get rid of
the swapping of the actual state objects which are wrapped by the `State`
objects. Then the implementation of a `StateBackend` wouldn't have to be spread
out over the `KvState` classes anymore. This again would make it easier to
integrate the notion of virtual state partitions/shards into `StateBackends`.
So in general, I think it would simplify our current `StateBackend`
implementations noticeable.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
