Github user zhijiangW commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3303
@StephanEwen , sorry for my carelessness of **checkNotNull**, it is a low
mistake. And I passed the "clean verify" in my local machine, thank you for
merging!
---
If your project is set up for
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3303
I have merged this to my local repository.
There were some issues left, partly in the commented out code.
In particular `checkNotNull(variable !=null) does not work, because
Github user zhijiangW commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3303
Hi @StephanEwen , thanks for detail reviews of this PR and I learnt a lot
from your comments.
I considered all your suggestions above and submitted the modifications,
including:
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3303
One thought that @tillrohrmann and me had: It is probably okay to comment
out or remove the **setters** and keep the **getters**. That should help in
keeping the internal code.
---
If your
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3303
A more general question on the resource matching: If I understand it
correctly, then the resource manager will try to get the "max" resources for an
operator, but potentially go down to the
Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3303
The code here looks very good, with a few minor comments.
The main problem is as you mentioned: We are adding something to the API
that is not yet supported by the runtime. We have done
