Thank you all for the feedback.
It seems we reach a consensus:
- The naming convention would better to be xyz.[min|max].
- Adding tests/tools checking the pattern of new configuration options
- Tickets for Flink 2.0 to migrate the "wrong" configuration options.
If there is no objection in the nex
+1 for xyz.[min|max]
This is already mentioned in the Code Style Guideline [1].
Best,
Jark
[1]:
https://flink.apache.org/contributing/code-style-and-quality-components.html#configuration-changes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 21:33, Flavio Pompermaier
wrote:
> +1 for Chesnay approach
>
> On Mon, Apr
+1 for Chesnay approach
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:31 PM Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> +1 for xyz.[min|max]; imo it becomes obvious if think of it like a yaml
> file:
>
> xyz:
> min:
> max:
>
> opposed to
>
> min-xyz:
> max-xyz:
>
> IIRC this would also be more in-line with the hierarchical
+1 for xyz.[min|max]; imo it becomes obvious if think of it like a yaml
file:
xyz:
min:
max:
opposed to
min-xyz:
max-xyz:
IIRC this would also be more in-line with the hierarchical scheme for
config options we decided on months ago.
On 27/04/2020 13:25, Xintong Song wrote:
+1 for
+1 for Robert's idea about adding tests/tools checking the pattern of new
configuration options, and migrate the old ones in release 2.0.
Concerning the preferred pattern, I personally agree with Till's opinion. I
think 'xyz.[min|max]' somehow expresses that 'min' and 'max' are properties
of 'xyz'
Hi everyone,
as Robert said I think the problem is that we don't have strict guidelines
and every committer follows his/her personal taste. I'm actually not sure
whether we can define bullet-proof guidelines but we can definitely
make them more concrete.
In this case here, I have to admit that I
Thanks for starting this discussion.
I believe the different options are a lot about personal taste, there are
no objective arguments why one option is better than the other.
I agree with your proposal to simply go with the "max-xyz" pattern, as this
is the style of the majority of the current con
Hi, everyone,
I'm working on FLINK-16605 Add max limitation to the total number of
slots[1]. In the PR, I, Gary and Xintong has a discussion[2] about the
config option of this limit.
The central question is whether the "max" should be part of the
hierarchy or part of the property itself.
It means
