Hi Navina, Thanks for the great proposal! Having the big proposals documented on SEPs is really great to have a good understanding on the system! I have only a clarification question, the proposal states that every containerId is the same as the processorId. So this means that inside a container there will be a single processor? is this related to SAMZA-1080 somehow?
Best, Renato M. 2017-03-30 20:45 GMT+02:00 Navina Ramesh <nram...@linkedin.com.invalid>: > Hi Yi, > Good question. Three reasons: > > 1. In SAMZA-881, we came up with a set of responsibilities for the > JobCoordinator. One of them was to generate/assign processorId. So, it > makes sense to keep getProcessorId() within JobCoordinator interface. > 2. StreamProcessor was initially introduced as a user-facing API > SAMZA-1080. ProcessorId was an argument in StreamProcessor constructor. It > was pushing the burden of guaranteeing unique among the processors of a job > to the user. This was not favorable. > 3. In general, I think we have consensus that the processorIdGenerator is > going to specific to a runtime environment. Hence, it seems more > appropriate to move it to a lower abstraction layer that deals with the > underlying execution environment. > > Let me know if you have a different perspective on this. > > Cheers! > Navina > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Yi Pan <nickpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @Navina, > > > > Sorry to chime in late. One question: > > 1. Why is it in JobCoordinator, and why not in StreamProcessor class? > > Because JobCoordinator provides coordination service across many > > processors, an interface getProcessorId() in JobCoordinator is confusing > > regarding to which processorId we are getting. > > > > Otherwise, the proposal looks good. > > > > -Yi > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Navina Ramesh > > <nram...@linkedin.com.invalid > > > wrote: > > > > > Good to hear from you, Yan. Thanks! :) > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yan Fang <yanfang...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 . Thanks for the proposal, Navina. :) > > > > > > > > Fang, Yan > > > > yanfang...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Prateek Maheshwari < > > > > pmaheshw...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non binding) from me. > > > > > > > > > > - Prateek > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Boris S <bor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:00 PM, xinyu liu < > xinyuliu...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my side. Very happy to see this proposal. This is a > blocker > > > for > > > > > > > integrating fluent API with StreamProcessor, and hopefully we > can > > > get > > > > > it > > > > > > > resolved soon :). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Xinyu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Navina Ramesh (Apache) < > > > > > > > nav...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a voting thread for SEP-1: Semantics of ProcessorId > in > > > > Samza. > > > > > > > > For reference, here is the wiki link: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SAMZA/SEP- > > > > > > > > 1%3A+Semantics+of+ProcessorId+in+Samza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link to discussion mail thread: > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/samza-dev/201703. > > > > > > > > mbox/%3CCANazzuuHiO%3DvZQyFbTiYU-0Sfh3riK%3Dz4j_ > > > > > > > AdCicQ8rBO%3DXuYQ%40mail. > > > > > > > > gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote on this SEP asap. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Navina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Navina R. > > > > > > > > > -- > Navina R. >
