> The main concern I have is that concurrent calls from the different
pipelines might step on each other in some way
In your current solution this wouldn't happen because you'd actually end
up with 3 separate sink operators.
> job1.union(job2).union(job3).addSink(sink)
This is the way to go.
On 23/09/2021 07:21, Antony Southworth wrote:
Hi
Firstly, apologies if I commit any faux-pas, I have never used a
mailing list before. At least from Googling, reading Flink docs, and
searching the mailing list archives for "fan-in" didn't turn up much
so hoping someone can enlighten me here.
My use-case is similar to the following:
DataStream source = env.addSource(new
FlinkKinesisConsumer("my-kinesis-stream", ...));
SinkFunction sink = new
MyCustomSNSSinkFunction("my-sns-topic", ...);
// "fan-out" to several paths
DataStream job1 = source
.assignTimestampsAndWatermarks(...)
.keyBy(...)
.window(TumblingEventTimeWindows.of(...))
.process(new Job1ProcessFunction());
DataStream job2 = source
.assignTimestampsAndWatermarks(...)
.keyBy(...)
.window(TumblingEventTimeWindows.of(...))
.process(new Job2ProcessFunction());
DataStream job3 = source
.assignTimestampsAndWatermarks(...)
.keyBy(...)
.window(TumblingEventTimeWindows.of(...))
.process(new Job3ProcessFunction());
// part I am curious about
// add the same sink object to each path
job1.addSink(sink);
job2.addSink(sink);
job3.addSink(sink);
env.execute();
Hopefully it's clear, the situation I describe (though I omit a lot of
details so please tell me if it's not so, or if any additional details
could help).
I couldn't find any examples in my Googling or reading the Flink docs
of situations like this, where there are several processing pipelines
(`job1`, `job2`, and `job3` in my example code) all feeding in to the
same `SinkFunction` object. The API docs don't really mention anything
about this case either (again, unless I missed it, in which case
please point it out to me :) ).
The main concern I have is that concurrent calls from the different
pipelines might step on each other in some way; can anyone confirm or
deny that the concern is valid? Should I be using `DataStream.union`
first? E.g. like `job1.union(job2).union(job3).addSink(sink)`?
Appreciate any advice people have :)
---
*Antony Southworth*
Data Engineer - Halter Limited
/This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential,
proprietary, privileged and/or private information. The information is
intended to be for the use of the individual or entity designated
above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please
notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any
attachments. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use
of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. /
