Hi all,
I'd like to start with a comment that I am ok with the current state of
the FLIP-122 if there is a strong preference for it. Nevertheless I still
like the idea of adding `type` to the `format` to have it as `format.type`
= `json`.
I wanted to clarify a few things though:
@Jingsong As far as I see it most of the users copy/paste the properties
from the documentation to the SQL, so I don't think additional four
characters are too cumbersome. Plus if you force the additional suffix onto
all the options of a format you introduce way more boilerplate than if we
added the `type/kind/name`
@Kurt I agree that we cannot force it, but I think it is more of a
question to set standards/implicit contracts on the properties. What you
described with
'format' = 'csv',
'csv.allow-comments' = 'true',
'csv.ignore-parse-errors' = 'true'
would not work though as the `format` prefix is mandatory in the sources
as only the properties with format will be passed to the format factory in
majority of cases. We already have some implicit contracts.
@Forward I did not necessarily get the example. Aren't json and bson two
separate formats? Do you mean you can have those two at the same time? Why
do you need to differentiate the options for each? The way I see it is:
‘format(.name)' = 'json',
‘format.fail-on-missing-field' = 'false'
or
‘format(.name)' = 'bson',
‘format.fail-on-missing-field' = 'false'
@Benchao I'd be fine with any of name, kind, type(this we already had in
the past)
Best,
Dawid
On 30/04/2020 04:17, Forward Xu wrote:
Here I have a little doubt. At present, our json only supports the
conventional json format. If we need to implement json with bson, json with
avro, etc., how should we express it?
Do you need like the following:
‘format.name' = 'json',
‘format.json.fail-on-missing-field' = 'false'
‘format.name' = 'bson',
‘format.bson.fail-on-missing-field' = ‘false'
Best,
Forward
Benchao Li <libenc...@gmail.com> <libenc...@gmail.com> 于2020年4月30日周四 上午9:58写道：
Thanks Timo for staring the discussion.
Generally I like the idea to keep the config align with a standard like
json/yaml.
From the user's perspective, I don't use table configs from a config file
like yaml or json for now,
And it's ok to change it to yaml like style. Actually we didn't know that
this could be a yaml like
configuration hierarchy. If it has a hierarchy, we maybe consider that in
the future to load the
config from a yaml/json file.
Regarding the name,
'format.kind' looks fine to me. However there is another name from the top
of my head:
'format.name', WDYT?
Dawid Wysakowicz <dwysakow...@apache.org> <dwysakow...@apache.org>
于2020年4月29日周三 下午11:56写道：
Hi all,
I also wanted to share my opinion.
When talking about a ConfigOption hierarchy we use for configuring Flink
cluster I would be a strong advocate for keeping a yaml/hocon/json/...
compatible style. Those options are primarily read from a file and thus
should at least try to follow common practices for nested formats if we
ever decide to switch to one.
Here the question is about the properties we use in SQL statements. The
origin/destination of these usually will be external catalog, usually in
a
flattened(key/value) representation so I agree it is not as important as
in
the aforementioned case. Nevertheless having a yaml based catalog or
being
able to have e.g. yaml based snapshots of a catalog in my opinion is
appealing. At the same time cost of being able to have a nice
yaml/hocon/json representation is just adding a single suffix to a
single(at most 2 key + value) property. The question is between `format`
=
`json` vs `format.kind` = `json`. That said I'd be slighty in favor of
doing it.
Just to have a full picture. Both cases can be represented in yaml, but
the difference is significant:
format: 'json'
format.option: 'value'
vs
format:
kind: 'json'
option: 'value'
Best,
Dawid
On 29/04/2020 17:13, Flavio Pompermaier wrote:
Personally I don't have any preference here. Compliance wih standard
YAML
parser is probably more important
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:10 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> <imj...@gmail.com>
wrote:
From a user's perspective, I prefer the shorter one "format=json",
because
it's more concise and straightforward. The "kind" is redundant for
users.
Is there a real case requires to represent the configuration in JSON
style?
As far as I can see, I don't see such requirement, and everything works
fine by now.
So I'm in favor of "format=json". But if the community insist to follow
code style on this, I'm also fine with the longer one.
Btw, I also CC user mailing list to listen more user's feedback.
Because I
think this is relative to usability.
Best,
Jark
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 22:09, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
<ches...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Therefore, should we advocate instead:
>
> 'format.kind' = 'json',
> 'format.fail-on-missing-field' = 'false'
Yes. That's pretty much it.
This is reasonable important to nail down as with such violations I
believe we could not actually switch to a standard YAML parser.
On 29/04/2020 16:05, Timo Walther wrote:
Hi everyone,
discussions around ConfigOption seem to be very popular recently.
So I
would also like to get some opinions on a different topic.
How do we represent hierarchies in ConfigOption? In FLIP-122, we
agreed on the following DDL syntax:
CREATE TABLE fs_table (
...
) WITH (
'connector' = 'filesystem',
'path' = 'file:///path/to/whatever',
'format' = 'csv',
'format.allow-comments' = 'true',
'format.ignore-parse-errors' = 'true'
);
Of course this is slightly different from regular Flink core
configuration but a connector still needs to be configured based on
these options.
However, I think this FLIP violates our code style guidelines
because
'format' = 'json',
'format.fail-on-missing-field' = 'false'
is an invalid hierarchy. `format` cannot be a string and a top-level
object at the same time.
We have similar problems in our runtime configuration:
state.backend=
state.backend.incremental=
restart-strategy=
restart-strategy.fixed-delay.delay=
high-availability=
high-availability.cluster-id=
The code style guide states "Think of the configuration as nested
objects (JSON style)". So such hierarchies cannot be represented in
a
nested JSON style.
Therefore, should we advocate instead:
'format.kind' = 'json',
'format.fail-on-missing-field' = 'false'
What do you think?
Thanks,
Timo
[1]
https://flink.apache.org/contributing/code-style-and-quality-components.html#configuration-changes
--
Benchao Li
School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking
UniversityTel:+86-15650713730
Email: libenc...@gmail.com; libenc...@pku.edu.cn
