I had pretty much in mind what Aljoscha suggested. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote:
> IMHO it’s not possible to have streaming/batch specific ExecutionConfig > since the user functions share a common interface, i.e. > getRuntimeContext().getExecutionConfig() simply returns the same type for > both. > > What could be done is to migrate batch/streaming specific stuff to the > ExecutionEnvironment and keep the ExecutionConfig strictly for stuff that > applies to both execution modes. > > On 12 Nov 2015, at 11:35, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > +1 for separating concerns by having a StreamExecutionConfig and a > > BatchExecutionConfig with inheritance from ExecutionConfig for general > > options. Not sure about the pre-flight and runtime options. I think > > they are ok in one config. > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> I think now (before the 1.0 release) is the right time to clean it up. > >> > >> Are you suggesting to have two execution configs for batch and > streaming? > >> > >> I'm not sure if we need to distinguish between pre-flight and runtime > >> options: From a user's perspective, it doesn't matter. For example the > >> serializer settings are evaluated during pre-flight but they have a > impact > >> during execution. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all! > >>> > >>> The ExecutionConfig is a bit of a strange thing right now. It looks > like it > >>> became the place where everyone just put the stuff they want to somehow > >>> push from the client to runtime, plus a random assortment of conflig > flags. > >>> > >>> As a result: > >>> > >>> - The ExecutionConfig is available in batch and streaming, but has a > >>> number of fields that are very streaming specific, like the watermark > >>> interval, etc. > >>> > >>> - Several fields that are purely pre-flight time relevant are in > there, > >>> like whether to use the closure cleaner, or whether to force Avro or > Kryo > >>> serializers for POJOs. > >>> > >>> Any interest in cleaning this up? Because these messy classes simply > grow > >>> ever more messy unless we establish a proper definition of what its > >>> concerns and non-concerns are... > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Stephan > >>> > >
