Hi, @vinoth
1, Hoodie*Config classes are only used to set default value when call their build method currently. They will be replaced by HoodieMemoryOptions, HoodieIndexOptions, HoodieHBaseIndexOptions, etc... 2, I don't understand the question "It is not clear to me whether there is any external facing changes which changes this model.". Best, lamber-ken At 2019-12-12 11:01:36, "Vinoth Chandar" <[email protected]> wrote: >I actually prefer the builder pattern for making the configs, because I can >do `builder.` in the IDE and actually see all the options... That said, >most developers program against the Spark datasource and so this may not be >useful, unless we expose a builder for that.. I will concede that since its >also subjective anyway. > >But, to clarify Siva's question, you do intend to keep the different >component level config classes right - HoodieIndexConfig, >HoodieCompactionConfig? > >Once again, can you please explicitly address the following question, so we >can get on the same page? >>> It is not clear to me whether there is any external facing changes which >changes this model. >This is still the most critical question from both me and balaji. > >On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:35 AM lamberken <[email protected]> wrote: > >> hi, @Sivabalan >> >> Yes, thanks very much for help me explain my initial proposal. >> >> >> Answer your question, we can call HoodieWriteConfig as a SystemConfig, we >> need to pass it everywhere. >> Actually, it may just contains a few custom configurations( does not >> include default configurations) >> Because each component has its own ConfigOptions. >> >> >> The old version HoodieWriteConfig includes all keys(custom configurations, >> default configurations), it is a fat. >> >> >> Best, >> lamber-ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 2019-12-12 03:14:11, "Sivabalan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >Let me summarize your initial proposal and then will get into details. >> >- Introduce ConfigOptions for ease of handling of default values. >> >- Remove all Hoodie*Config classes and just have HoodieWriteConfig. What >> >this means is that, every other config file will be replaced by >> >ConfigOptions. eg, HoodieIndexConfigOption, HoodieCompactionConfigOption, >> >etc. >> >- Config option will take care of returning defaults for any property, >> even >> >if an entire Config(eg IndexConfig) is not explicitly set. >> > >> >Here are the positives I see. >> >- By way of having component level ConfigOptions, we bucketize the configs >> >and have defaults set(same as before) >> >- User doesn't need to set each component's config(eg IndexConfig) >> >explicitly with HoodieWriteConfig. >> > >> >But have one question: >> >- I see Bucketizing only in write path. How does one get hold of >> >IndexConfigOptions as a consumer? For eg, If some class is using just >> >IndexConfig alone, how will it consume? From your eg, I see only >> >HoodieWriteConfig. Do we pass in HoodieWriteConfig everywhere then? >> >Wouldn't that contradicts your initial proposal to not have a fat config >> >class? May be can you expand your example below to show how a consumer of >> >IndexConfig look like. >> > >> >Your eg: >> >/** >> > * New version >> > */ >> >// set value overrite the default value >> >HoodieWriteConfig config = new HoodieWriteConfig(); >> >config.set(HoodieIndexConfigOptions.INDEX_TYPE, >> >HoodieIndex.IndexType.HBASE.name < >> http://hoodieindex.indextype.hbase.name/> >> >()) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 8:33 AM lamberken <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1,2. Yes, you are right, moving the getter to the component level >> >> Config class itself. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3, HoodieWriteConfig can also set value through ConfigOption, small >> >> code snippets. >> >> From the bellow snippets, we can see that clients need to know each >> >> component's builders >> >> and also call their "with" methods to override the default value in old >> >> version. >> >> >> >> >> >> But, in new version, clients just need to know each component's public >> >> config options, just like constants. >> >> So, these builders are redundant. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /---------------------------------------------------------------------------/ >> >> >> >> >> >> public class HoodieIndexConfigOptions { >> >> public static final ConfigOption<String> INDEX_TYPE = ConfigOption >> >> .key("hoodie.index.type") >> >> .defaultValue(HoodieIndex.IndexType.BLOOM.name()); >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> public class HoodieWriteConfig { >> >> public void setString(ConfigOption<String> option, String value) { >> >> this.props.put(option.key(), value); >> >> } >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /** >> >> * New version >> >> */ >> >> // set value overrite the default value >> >> HoodieWriteConfig config = new HoodieWriteConfig(); >> >> config.set(HoodieIndexConfigOptions.INDEX_TYPE, >> >> HoodieIndex.IndexType.HBASE.name()) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /** >> >> * Old version >> >> */ >> >> HoodieWriteConfig.Builder builder = HoodieWriteConfig.newBuilder() >> >> >> >> >> builder.withIndexConfig(HoodieIndexConfig.newBuilder().withIndexType(HoodieIndex.IndexType.BLOOM).build()) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /---------------------------------------------------------------------------/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Another, users use hudi like bellow, here're all keys. >> >> >> >> >> /---------------------------------------------------------------------------/ >> >> >> >> >> >> df.write.format("hudi"). >> >> option("hoodie.insert.shuffle.parallelism", "10"). >> >> option("hoodie.upsert.shuffle.parallelism", "10"). >> >> option("hoodie.delete.shuffle.parallelism", "10"). >> >> option("hoodie.bulkinsert.shuffle.parallelism", "10"). >> >> option("hoodie.datasource.write.recordkey.field", "name"). >> >> option("hoodie.datasource.write.partitionpath.field", "location"). >> >> option("hoodie.datasource.write.precombine.field", "ts"). >> >> option("hoodie.table.name", tableName). >> >> mode(Overwrite). >> >> save(basePath); >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /---------------------------------------------------------------------------/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Last, as I responsed to @vino, it's reasonable to handle fallbackkeys. I >> >> think we need to do this step by step, >> >> it's easy to integrate FallbackKey in the future, it is not what we need >> >> right now in my opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >> If some places are still not very clear, feel free to feedback. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> lamber-ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 2019-12-11 23:41:31, "Vinoth Chandar" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Hi Lamber-ken, >> >> > >> >> >I looked at the sample PR you put up as well. >> >> > >> >> >On 1,2 => Seems your intent is to replace these with moving the getter >> to >> >> >the component level Config class itself? I am fine with that (although >> I >> >> >think its not that big of a hurdle really to use atm). But, once we do >> >> that >> >> >we could pass just the specific component config into parts of code >> versus >> >> >passing in the entire HoodieWriteConfig object. I am fine with moving >> the >> >> >classes to a ConfigOption class as you suggested as well. >> >> > >> >> >On 3, I still we feel we will need the builder pattern going forward. >> to >> >> >build the HoodieWriteConfig object. Like below? Cannot understand why >> we >> >> >would want to change this. Could you please clarify? >> >> > >> >> >HoodieWriteConfig.Builder builder = >> >> > >> >> >> HoodieWriteConfig.newBuilder().withPath(cfg.targetBasePath).combineInput(cfg.filterDupes, >> >> >true) >> >> > >> >> >> .withCompactionConfig(HoodieCompactionConfig.newBuilder().withPayloadClass(cfg.payloadClassName) >> >> > // Inline compaction is disabled for continuous mode. >> >> >otherwise enabled for MOR >> >> > >> >> .withInlineCompaction(cfg.isInlineCompactionEnabled()).build()) >> >> > .forTable(cfg.targetTableName) >> >> > >> >> >> .withIndexConfig(HoodieIndexConfig.newBuilder().withIndexType(HoodieIndex.IndexType.BLOOM).build()) >> >> > .withAutoCommit(false).withProps(props); >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Typically, we write RFCs for large changes that breaks existing >> behavior >> >> or >> >> >introduces significantly complex new features.. If you are just >> planning >> >> to >> >> >do the refactoring into ConfigOption class, per se you don't need a >> RFC. >> >> >But , if you plan to address the fallback keys (or) your changes are >> going >> >> >to break/change existing jobs, we would need a RFC. >> >> > >> >> >>> It is not clear to me whether there is any external facing changes >> >> which >> >> >changes this model. >> >> >I am still unclear on this as well. can you please explicitly clarify? >> >> > >> >> >thanks >> >> >vinoth >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:35 PM lamberken <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, @Balaji @Vinoth >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sorry, some places are not very clear, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1, We can see that HoodieMetricsConfig, HoodieStorageConfig, etc.. >> >> already >> >> >> defined in project. >> >> >> But we get property value by methods which defined in >> >> >> HoodieWriteConfig, like HoodieWriteConfig#getParquetMaxFileSize, >> >> >> HoodieWriteConfig#getParquetBlockSize, etc. It's means that >> >> >> Hoodie*Config are redundant. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2, These Hoodie*Config classes are used to set default value when >> call >> >> >> their build method, nothing else. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3, For current plan is keep the Builder pattern when configuring, >> when >> >> we >> >> >> are familiar with the config framework, >> >> >> We will find that Hoodie*Config class are redundant and methods >> >> >> prefixed with "get" in HoodieWriteConfig are also redundant. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In addition, I create a pr[1] for initializing with a demo. At this >> >> demo, >> >> >> I create >> >> >> MetricsGraphiteReporterOptions which contains HOST, PORT, PREFIX, and >> >> >> remove getGraphiteServerHost, >> >> >> getGraphiteServerPort, getGraphiteMetricPrefix in >> HoodieMetricsConfig. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hudi/pull/1094 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> lamber-ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 2019-12-11 02:35:30, "Balaji Varadarajan" >> <[email protected] >> >> > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Hi Lamber-Ken, >> >> >> >Thanks for the time writing the proposal and thinking about >> improving >> >> >> Hudi usability. >> >> >> >My preference would be to keep the Builder pattern when >> configuring. It >> >> >> is something I find it natural when configuring. It is not clear to >> me >> >> >> whether there is any external facing changes which changes this >> model. >> >> >> Would you mind adding some more details on the RFC. It would save >> time >> >> to >> >> >> read it in one place as opposed to checking out github repo :) >> >> >> >Thanks,Balaji.V >> >> >> > On Tuesday, December 10, 2019, 07:55:01 AM PST, Vinoth Chandar < >> >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hi , >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thanks for the proposal. Some parts I agree, some parts I don't and >> >> some >> >> >> >parts are unclear >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Agree : >> >> >> >- On introducing a class that binds key, default value, provided >> value, >> >> >> and >> >> >> >also may be a doc along with it (?). >> >> >> >- Designing the framework to have fallback keys is good IMO. It >> helps >> >> us >> >> >> do >> >> >> >things like https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HUDI-89 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Disagree : >> >> >> >- Not all configuration values are in HoodieWriteConfig, its not >> >> accurate. >> >> >> >Configs are already split by components into HoodieIndexConfig, >> >> >> >HoodieCompactionConfig etc.. >> >> >> >- There are helpers for all these conveniently located in >> >> >> >HoodieWriteConfig. I think some of the claims of usability seem >> >> subjective >> >> >> >to me, speaking from hands-on experience writing jobs. So, if you >> >> >> proposing >> >> >> >a large shake up (e.g not have a single properties file load all >> >> >> >components), I would love to understand this at more depth. From my >> >> >> >experience, well namespaced configs in a single properties file >> keeps >> >> it >> >> >> >simple and understandable. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Unclear : >> >> >> >- What is impact on existing jobs - using RDD/WriteClient API, >> >> >> DataSource, >> >> >> >DeltaStreamer level? Do you intend to change namespacing of configs? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thanks >> >> >> >Vinoth >> >> >> > >> >> >> >On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 6:44 AM lamberken <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, vino >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Reasonable, we can refactor this step by step. The first step now >> >> is to >> >> >> >> introduce the config framework. >> >> >> >> When our community is familiar with the config framework >> mechanism, >> >> it's >> >> >> >> easy to integrate FallbackKey in the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> lamber-ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 2019-12-10 11:51:22, "vino yang" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Hi Lamber, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Thanks for the proposal. +1 from my side. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >When it comes to configuration, it will involve how we handle >> >> >> deprecated >> >> >> >> >configuration items in the future. In my opinion, we need to take >> >> this >> >> >> >> into >> >> >> >> >consideration when designing. There are already some successful >> >> >> practices >> >> >> >> >for our reference. For example, Flink defines some deprecated >> >> >> >> >configurations as FallbackKey[1]. Maybe we can learn from these >> >> >> designs. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >WDYT？ >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >[1]: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/configuration/FallbackKey.java >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Best, >> >> >> >> >Vino >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >lamberken <[email protected]> 于2019年12月9日周一 下午11:19写道： >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, all >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Currently, many configuration items and their default values >> are >> >> >> >> dispersed >> >> >> >> >> in the config file like HoodieWriteConfig. It’s very confused >> for >> >> >> >> >> developers, and it's easy for developers to use them in a wrong >> >> place >> >> >> >> >> especially when there are more and more configuration items. >> If we >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> solve this, developers will benefit from it and the code >> structure >> >> >> will >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> more concise. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I had create a JIRA[1] and a under discuss RFC[2] to explain >> how >> >> to >> >> >> >> solve >> >> >> >> >> the problem, if you are interested in this, you can visit jira >> and >> >> >> RFC >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> detail. Any comments and feedback are welcome, WDYT? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> lamber-ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HUDI/issues/HUDI-375 >> >> >> >> >> [2] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HUDI/RFC-11+%3A+Refactor+of+the+configuration+framework+of+hudi+project >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Regards, >> >-Sivabalan >>
