So the options here would be moved to runner options? https://beam.apache.org/releases/pydoc/2.12.0/_modules/apache_beam/options/pipeline_options.html#WorkerOptions
In Java they are in DataflowPipelineWorkerPoolOptions and of course we have FlinkPipelineOptions etc... *From: *Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> *Date: *Tue, 7 May 2019 at 05:29 *To: *dev > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:13 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > >> There were also discussions[1] in the past about scoping PipelineOptions >> to specific PTransforms. Would scoping PipelineOptions to PTransforms make >> this a more general solution? >> >> 1: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/05f849d39788cb0af840cb9e86ca631586783947eb4e5a1774b647d1@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > > Is this just for pipeline construction time or also for runtime ? Trying > to scope options for transforms at runtime might complicate things in the > presence of optimizations such as fusion. > > >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:02 PM Ankur Goenka <goe...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Having namespaces for option makes sense. >>> I think, along with a help command to print all the options given the >>> runner name will be useful. >>> As for the scope of name spacing, I think that assigning a logical name >>> space gives more flexibility around how and where we declare options. It >>> also make future refactoring possible. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:50 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Good points. As already mentioned there is no namespacing between the >>>> different pipeline option classes. In particular, there is no separate >>>> namespace for system and user options which is most concerning. >>>> >>>> I'm in favor of an optional namespace using the class name of the >>>> defining pipeline option class. That way we would at least be able to >>>> resolve duplicate option names. For example, if there were was >>>> "optionX" >>>> in class A and B, we could use "A#optionX" to refer to it from class A. >>>> >>> > I think this solves the original problem. Runner specific options will > have unique names that includes the runner (in options class). I guess to > be complete we also have to include the package (module for Python) ? > If an option is globally unique, users should be able to specify it > without qualifying (at least for backwards compatibility). > > >> >>>> -Max >>>> >>>> On 04.05.19 02:23, Reza Rokni wrote: >>>> > Great point Lukasz, worker machine could be relevant to multiple >>>> runners. >>>> > >>>> > Perhaps for parameters that could have multiple runner relevance, the >>>> > doc could be rephrased to reflect its potential multiple uses. For >>>> > example change the help information to start with a generic reference >>>> " >>>> > worker type on the runner" followed by runner specific behavior >>>> expected >>>> > for RunnerA, RunnerB etc... >>>> > >>>> > But I do worry that without prefix even generic options could cause >>>> > confusion. For example if the use of --network is substantially >>>> > different between runnerA vs runnerB then the user will only have >>>> this >>>> > information by reading the help. It will also mean that a pipeline >>>> which >>>> > is expected to work both on-premise on RunnerA and in the cloud on >>>> > RunnerB could fail because the format of the options to pass to >>>> > --network are different. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers >>>> > >>>> > Reza >>>> > >>>> > *From: *Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org <mailto:k...@apache.org>> >>>> > *Date: *Sat, 4 May 2019 at 03:54 >>>> > *To: *dev >>>> > >>>> > Even though they are in classes named for specific runners, they >>>> are >>>> > not namespaced. All PipelineOptions exist in a global namespace so >>>> > they need to be careful to be very precise. >>>> > >>>> > It is a good point that even though they may be multiple uses for >>>> > "machine type" they are probably not going to both happen at the >>>> > same time. >>>> > >>>> > If it becomes an issue, another thing we could do would be to add >>>> > namespacing support so options have less spooky action, or at >>>> least >>>> > have a way to resolve it when it happens on accident. >>>> > >>>> > Kenn >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:43 AM Chamikara Jayalath >>>> > <chamik...@google.com <mailto:chamik...@google.com>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > 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 >>>> > <mailto:al...@google.com>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I agree, that is a good point. >>>> > >>>> > *From: *Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com <mailto: >>>> 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 <mailto: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 >>>> > <mailto:r...@google.com>> >>>> > *Date: *Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:00 PM >>>> > *To: * <dev@beam.apache.org >>>> > <mailto: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. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > >>>> > 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. >>>> > >>>> >>> -- 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.
