[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-115?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15889140#comment-15889140 ]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on BEAM-115: ------------------------------------- GitHub user robertwb opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2131 [BEAM-115] Inline rather than reference FunctionSpecs. Be sure to do all of the following to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily: - [ ] Make sure the PR title is formatted like: `[BEAM-<Jira issue #>] Description of pull request` - [ ] Make sure tests pass via `mvn clean verify`. (Even better, enable Travis-CI on your fork and ensure the whole test matrix passes). - [ ] Replace `<Jira issue #>` in the title with the actual Jira issue number, if there is one. - [ ] If this contribution is large, please file an Apache [Individual Contributor License Agreement](https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt). --- You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/robertwb/incubator-beam runner-protos Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2131.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2131 ---- commit cbfce74aae64f9b353c07ced8427dc77ab1c31f4 Author: Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> Date: 2017-02-28T23:51:24Z Inline rather than reference FunctionSpecs. ---- > Beam Runner API > --------------- > > Key: BEAM-115 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-115 > Project: Beam > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: beam-model-runner-api > Reporter: Kenneth Knowles > Assignee: Kenneth Knowles > > The PipelineRunner API from the SDK is not ideal for the Beam technical > vision. > It has technical limitations: > - The user's DAG (even including library expansions) is never explicitly > represented, so it cannot be analyzed except incrementally, and cannot > necessarily be reconstructed (for example, to display it!). > - The flattened DAG of just primitive transforms isn't well-suited for > display or transform override. > - The TransformHierarchy isn't well-suited for optimizations. > - The user must realistically pre-commit to a runner, and its configuration > (batch vs streaming) prior to graph construction, since the runner will be > modifying the graph as it is built. > - It is fairly language- and SDK-specific. > It has usability issues (these are not from intuition, but derived from > actual cases of failure to use according to the design) > - The interleaving of apply() methods in PTransform/Pipeline/PipelineRunner > is confusing. > - The TransformHierarchy, accessible only via visitor traversals, is > cumbersome. > - The staging of construction-time vs run-time is not always obvious. > These are just examples. This ticket tracks designing, coming to consensus, > and building an API that more simply and directly supports the technical > vision. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)