+1. I agree to keep the old ones only for backward compatibility purpose.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Evan Chan <e...@ooyala.com> wrote: > +1. > > Not just for Typesafe Config, but if we want to consider hierarchical > configs like JSON rather than flat key mappings, it is necessary. It > is also clearer. > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Aaron Davidson <ilike...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Should we try to deprecate these types of configs for 1.0.0? We can start > > by accepting both and giving a warning if you use the old one, and then > > actually remove them in the next minor release. I think > > "spark.speculation.enabled=true" is better than "spark.speculation=true", > > and if we decide to use typesafe configs again ourselves, this change is > > necessary. > > > > We actually don't have to ever complete the deprecation - we can always > > accept both spark.speculation and spark.speculation.enabled, and people > > just have to use the latter if they want to use typesafe config. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com > >wrote: > > > >> That's the whole reason why some of the intended configuration changes > >> were backed out just before the 0.9.0 release. It's a well-known issue, > >> even if a completely satisfactory solution isn't as well-known and is > >> probably something which should do another iteration on. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> i am reading the spark configuration params from another configuration > >>> object (typesafe config) before setting them as system properties. > >>> > >>> i noticed typesafe config has trouble with settings like: > >>> spark.speculation=true > >>> spark.speculation.interval=0.5 > >>> > >>> the issue seems to be that if spark.speculation is a "container" that > has > >>> more values inside then it cannot be also a value itself, i think. so > this > >>> would work fine: > >>> spark.speculation.enabled=true > >>> spark.speculation.interval=0.5 > >>> > >>> just a heads up. i would probably suggest we avoid this situation. > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > -- > Evan Chan > Staff Engineer > e...@ooyala.com | >
