Yes, just put an entry into the configuration map, something like
"myclass": "com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer",
But still, why do you need to instantiate your factory? Why not just
define it as follows:
public static class DummyExecutorCreator implements IExecutorCreator
{
String name_;
public DummyExecutorCreator(String name) { this.name_ = name;}
public static IExecutor create(Map map, TopologyContext tc,
OutputCollector oc) {
return new DummyExecutor();
}
};
and then just call
this.executor_ = DummyExecutorCreator.create(map, tc, oc);
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Arthur Andres <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> Maybe I haven't used the right wording.
> I give an instance of the factory to the bolt. The bolt stores the factory
> and it needs to be serialized.
> Ideally I want to create different factories, with different parameters in
> order to have different type of bolts.
> So having a static factory does not really help in this case.
>
> But otherwise would you know how to register a serializer for a bolt
> member.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Nathan Leung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Factory create methods are usually static, no? You should just store the
>> string in your bolt and the make the factory create method a static call
>> that takes the string as a parameter.
>> On Nov 14, 2014 9:17 AM, "Arthur Andres" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I've submitted a question on stackoverflow regarding the serialization
>>> of members of bolts.
>>> I wanted to bring it to the attention of the subscribers of this list:
>>>
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26931220/how-to-simply-set-up-a-serializer-for-storm-bolt-spout-members
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> PS: here's a copy of the question:
>>> I have a bolt that uses a factory interface to create the tools it uses.
>>> It creates those tools when `prepare` is called. The Factory implementation
>>> only has basic members (strings, integers) that should be serializable by
>>> default.
>>>
>>> When I run my topology I get a `NotSerializableException`, coming from
>>> the factory implementation. I was wondering how I could register a
>>> serializer for the factory.
>>>
>>> here's an example:
>>>
>>> public class Demo extends BaseRichBolt {
>>>
>>> public static interface IExecutor
>>> {
>>> public void execute( Tuple tuple );
>>> }
>>>
>>> public static interface IExecutorCreator
>>> {
>>> public IExecutor create( Map map, TopologyContext tc,
>>> OutputCollector oc );
>>> };
>>>
>>> public static class DummyExecutor implements IExecutor
>>> {
>>> public void execute( Tuple tuple ) {}
>>> };
>>>
>>> public static class DummyExecutorCreator implements
>>> IExecutorCreator
>>> {
>>> String name_;
>>> public DummyExecutorCreator(String name) { this.name_ =
>>> name;}
>>> public IExecutor create(Map map, TopologyContext tc,
>>> OutputCollector oc) {
>>> return new DummyExecutor();
>>> }
>>> };
>>>
>>> public void declareOutputFields(OutputFieldsDeclarer ofd) {
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> private IExecutor executor_;
>>> private IExecutorCreator creator_;
>>>
>>> public Demo(IExecutorCreator creator)
>>> {
>>> this.creator_ = creator;
>>> }
>>>
>>> public void prepare(Map map, TopologyContext tc, OutputCollector
>>> oc) {
>>> this.executor_ = this.creator_.create(map, tc, oc);
>>> }
>>>
>>> public void execute(Tuple tuple) {
>>> this.executor_.execute(tuple);
>>> }
>>>
>>> }
>>> And I get this error when I try to run it in a topology:
>>> `java.io.NotSerializableException: Demo$DummyExecutorCreator`
>>>
>>> As a side note I'm starting to wonder, why don't Storm have you to
>>> register factories instead of Bolts and Spouts. since in the end they get
>>> serialized and copied across the different threads, it'd be probably better
>>> to just give storm a mean to generate those bolts and separate the concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
