Also, we do have runner specific options classes where truly runner specific options can go.
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/runners/google-cloud-dataflow-java/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/dataflow/options/DataflowPipelineOptions.java https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/runners/flink/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/flink/FlinkPipelineOptions.java On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:50 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > I agree, that is a good point. > > *From: *Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> > *Date: *Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:37 AM > *To: *dev > > 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 <al...@google.com> 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 <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. >>>> >>>
