alpinegizmo commented on a change in pull request #17797:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/17797#discussion_r753011857
##########
File path: docs/content/docs/dev/datastream/operators/asyncio.md
##########
@@ -266,12 +266,6 @@ For example, the following patterns result in a blocking
`asyncInvoke(...)` func
- Blocking/waiting on the future-type objects returned by an asynchronous
client inside the `asyncInvoke(...)` method
-**The operator for AsyncFunction (AsyncWaitOperator) must currently be at the
head of operator chains for consistency reasons**
-
-For the reasons given in issue `FLINK-13063`, we currently must break operator
chains for the `AsyncWaitOperator` to prevent
-potential consistency problems. This is a change to the previous behavior that
supported chaining. User that
-require the old behavior and accept potential violations of the consistency
guarantees can instantiate and add the
-`AsyncWaitOperator` manually to the job graph and set the chaining strategy
back to chaining via
-`AsyncWaitOperator#setChainingStrategy(ChainingStrategy.ALWAYS)`.
+**AsyncFunction(AsyncWaitOperator) is allowed to be chained by default with
all operators, except of tasks with `SourceFunction`/`SourceStreamTask`.**
Review comment:
```suggestion
An **AsyncFunction(AsyncWaitOperator) can be used anywhere the job graph,
except that it cannot be chained to a `SourceFunction`/`SourceStreamTask`.**
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
