Hi,
They need to change due to this, because only HoodieWriteConfig and *Options will be kept. best, lamber-ken At 2019-12-14 01:23:35, "Vinoth Chandar" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 <[email protected]> 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" <[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 >> >> >>
