[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5991?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15929994#comment-15929994
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-5991:
---------------------------------------
Github user tzulitai commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3508
Nice following the discussion here :)
I think I'm also leaning a bit more towards naming it `UnionListState`.
From the user's prospective, it seems to be more clearer if the name of the
type of state describes how the state will be restored.
This would imply that it would be ideal to rename the repartitionable list
state methods, though.
Another follow up question regarding the Java serialization shorcuts:
should we also deprecate the `getSerializableListState` method to prepare
it for removal?
> Expose Broadcast Operator State through public APIs
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-5991
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5991
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: DataStream API, State Backends, Checkpointing
> Reporter: Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai
> Assignee: Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai
> Fix For: 1.3.0
>
>
> The broadcast operator state functionality was added in FLINK-5265, it just
> hasn't been exposed through any public APIs yet.
> Currently, we have 2 streaming connector features for 1.3 that are pending on
> broadcast state: rescalable Kinesis / Kafka consumers with shard / partition
> discovery (FLINK-4821 & FLINK-4022). We should consider exposing broadcast
> state for the 1.3 release also.
> This JIRA also serves the purpose to discuss how we want to expose it.
> To initiate the discussion, I propose:
> 1. For the more powerful {{CheckpointedFunction}}, add the following to the
> {{OperatorStateStore}} interface:
> {code}
> <S> ListState<S> getBroadcastOperatorState(ListStateDescriptor<S>
> stateDescriptor);
> <T extends Serializable> ListState<T>
> getBroadcastSerializableListState(String stateName);
> {code}
> 2. For a simpler {{ListCheckpointed}} variant, we probably should have a
> separate {{BroadcastListCheckpointed}} interface.
> Extending {{ListCheckpointed}} to let the user define either the list state
> type of either {{PARTITIONABLE}} or {{BROADCAST}} might also be possible, if
> we can rely on a contract that the value doesn't change. Or we expose a
> defining method (e.g. {{getListStateType()}}) that is called only once in the
> operator. This would break user code, but can be considered because it is
> marked as {{PublicEvolving}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
