This idea was discussed in a PR a few months ago, and JIRA was filed as a follow up [1]. IMO, it makes sense to use a namespace prefix. The primary issue here is that, such a change will very likely be a backward incompatible change and would be hard to do before the next major version.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6531 *From: *Reza Rokni <r...@google.com> *Date: *Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:00 PM *To: * <dev@beam.apache.org> Hi, > > Was reading this SO question: > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53833171/googlecloudoptions-doesnt-have-all-options-that-pipeline-options-has > > And noticed that in > > > https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.12.0/_modules/apache_beam/options/pipeline_options.html#WorkerOptions > > The option is called --worker_machine_type. > > I wonder if runner specific options should have the runner in the prefix? > Something like --dataflow_worker_machine_type? > > Cheers > Reza > > -- > > This email may be confidential and privileged. If you received this > communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please > erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it has gone > to the wrong person. > > The above terms reflect a potential business arrangement, are provided > solely as a basis for further discussion, and are not intended to be and do > not constitute a legally binding obligation. No legally binding obligations > will be created, implied, or inferred until an agreement in final form is > executed in writing by all parties involved. >
