Hi, We are trying to understand if existing jobs (datasource, deltastreamer, anything else) needs to change due to this.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 7:18 PM lamberken <lamber...@163.com> wrote: > > > 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" <vin...@apache.org> 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 <lamber...@163.com> 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" <n.siv...@gmail.com> 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 <lamber...@163.com> 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" <vin...@apache.org> 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 <lamber...@163.com> > 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" > >> <v.bal...@ymail.com.INVALID > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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 < > >> >> >> vin...@apache.org> 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 <lamber...@163.com> > >> 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" <yanghua1...@gmail.com> > >> 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 <lamber...@163.com> 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 > >> >
