[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2017-11-01 Thread XuPingyong
Github user XuPingyong commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 I do not agree with this pr as it always copy StreamRecord to downstream operator. StreamMap change the input StreamRecord, so this pr works well. But many operators do not change/reuse

[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2016-06-27 Thread aljoscha
Github user aljoscha commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 Aw man, I already hat "rename to Test" in my commit but forgot to add that ... 😅 Thanks again, @tillrohrmann, I'll make the changes and merge. --- If your project is set up for it,

[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2016-06-23 Thread tillrohrmann
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 Excellent work @aljoscha. Great fix for the problem and it's also really nice that we could get rid of the IT case :-) +1 for merging after addressing my minor comments. --- If your project

[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2016-06-23 Thread aljoscha
Github user aljoscha commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 @tillrohrmann I pushed a commit that removes the per-operator object-reuse setting, refactors broadcasting and direct outputs and changes the ITCase to a test case. Happy reviewing. 😃 --- If

[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2016-06-23 Thread aljoscha
Github user aljoscha commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 I'll try and come up with something, I'll probably remove the `isInputCopyDisabled` from operator and only allow a global setting for object reuse. This should simplify things. --- If your

[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2016-06-23 Thread aljoscha
Github user aljoscha commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 Thanks for the thorough review, @tillrohrmann! Your points are valid, maybe I'll have to change this PR but let me first explain my reasoning. The shallow copy is performed in the

[GitHub] flink issue #2110: [FLINK-3974] Fix object reuse with multi-chaining

2016-06-22 Thread tillrohrmann
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2110 Thanks for the contribution @wanderingbort and @aljoscha. I might be wrong, but maybe there is a slightly better place for the copying operation. Furthermore, I think that it would be