The concept of a machine type isn't necessarily limited to Dataflow. If it made sense for a runner, they could use AWS/Azure machine types as well.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:32 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:00 PM > *To: * <[email protected]> > > 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. >> >
