Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-101203099
Does every user need to implement the user config object?
In the code, do you always need to cast the user config to your specific
class?
---
If your project is
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-101201653
I thought its much nicer for users to provide a typed POJO (implementing
`UserConfig`) instead of a String map.
This approach leaves at least the door open for a type
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-101035060
Nice idea. Do we need the special `UserConfig` interface, or can we use a
`Properties` object, or a directly a `Map`?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can r
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100941805
Thanks for clarifying, Robert.
I think convention to expect *Util classes to just contain static methods
instead of being created as an instance.
Maybe we co
Github user hsaputra commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#discussion_r30046159
--- Diff:
flink-examples/flink-java-examples/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/examples/java/wordcount/PojoExample.java
---
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
import org.ap
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100926127
Yes, something like this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have t
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100923321
@aljoscha:
Is this the API you were thinking of?
```java
RequiredParameters required = new RequiredParameters();
Option input = required.add("input").
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100917520
>>If this tool also supported positional arguments ...
>
>I also though about adding those, but decided against it, because args[n]
is already a way of > accessin
Github user mxm commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100897320
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the parser in Apache Commons is not the
nicest...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply a
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100891653
Thank you.
I didn't reuse the parser there because there is an ongoing JIRA to unify
all the command line parsers inside Flink. It seems that we are using at least
t
Github user mxm commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100891261
Very helpful utility. I think it's worth adapting all the examples if we
merge this. Removes a lot of unnecessary code and makes the examples more
readable.
May I a
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100880185
I like it. But I think it needs some functionality for verifying
parameters. To let the user specify some parameters that always need to be
there and a description of th
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100882340
I agree, however it should be optional. I don't like these tools where you
spend a lot of time registering / specifying arguments.
People want to analyze their data,
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100805130
In Hadoop, the `UserConfig` would probably be a `Configuration` object with
key/value pairs.
In Flink, we are trying to get rid of these untyped maps.
Instead, I
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100775629
This is great idea @rmetzger
I am bit confuse about the addition of UserConfig interface.
Is the interface added to add abstraction for the ParameterUtil? I
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100605507
Thank you for the feedback so far!
@uce
> In the word count example: is the only point of setting the user config
in the execution config only to show the v
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100601591
Cool tool, Robert. This is definitely useful for users.
If this tool also supported positional arguments, then we wouldn't have to
change how the examples
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664#issuecomment-100600902
**Feedback w/o code review**
I like the idea very much. +1 for the general thing. Exporting it to the
web interface is great. Thanks for this. :-)
The Hadoop
GitHub user rmetzger opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/664
[FLINK-1525][FEEDBACK] Introduction of a small input parameter parsing
utility
Hi,
last week I was running a bunch of Flink Streaming jobs on a cluster. One
of the jobs had 8 arguments which I
19 matches
Mail list logo
