You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apex.apache.org by Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com> on 2015/11/20 00:49:56 UTC
Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and still
I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
from application)
Best,
Siyuan
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
We used to have that but the current way is better only because
StatelessPartitioner does not always work as a good default.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I was thinking some operator attribute like this in populateDag:
> dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.NUM_PARTITIONS, 2);
>
> which could translate internally to:
> dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.PARTITIONER, new
> StatelessPartitioner<GenericTestOperator>(2));
>
> But just setting number of partitions would be easier in populateDag and
> user does not need to worry about which partitioner to use.
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Is the suggestion that operators implement the partitioner interface and
> > pass-through the calls to the partitioner implementation set as a
> property
> > or is it something else?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Gaurav Gupta <ga...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I also think property works better because as Thomas mentioned it can
> be
> > > configured like any other operator component.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > - Gaurav
> > >
> > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to
> > 'set
> > > > number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up
> > > > Stateless Partitioner as default?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Isha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <
> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I actually think a property works better as it will let you
> configure
> > > the
> > > >> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka
> > consumer.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> sent from mobile
> > > >> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to
> > have
> > > an
> > > >>> annotation
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the
> > call
> > > >> to
> > > >>>> the partitioner implementation?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Idea for an annotation maybe?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <
> > siyuan@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>> still
> > > >>>>>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with
> > > >> specifying
> > > >>> it
> > > >>>>>> from application)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>> Siyuan
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>.
Isha,
What you are suggesting should be a property on the partitioner instead.
Not every partitioner needs such property configuration. You could have one
that partitions itself based on the external system, for example.
Thanks,
Thomas
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I was thinking some operator attribute like this in populateDag:
> dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.NUM_PARTITIONS, 2);
>
> which could translate internally to:
> dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.PARTITIONER, new
> StatelessPartitioner<GenericTestOperator>(2));
>
> But just setting number of partitions would be easier in populateDag and
> user does not need to worry about which partitioner to use.
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Is the suggestion that operators implement the partitioner interface and
> > pass-through the calls to the partitioner implementation set as a
> property
> > or is it something else?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Gaurav Gupta <ga...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I also think property works better because as Thomas mentioned it can
> be
> > > configured like any other operator component.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > - Gaurav
> > >
> > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to
> > 'set
> > > > number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up
> > > > Stateless Partitioner as default?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Isha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <
> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I actually think a property works better as it will let you
> configure
> > > the
> > > >> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka
> > consumer.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> sent from mobile
> > > >> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to
> > have
> > > an
> > > >>> annotation
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the
> > call
> > > >> to
> > > >>>> the partitioner implementation?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Idea for an annotation maybe?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <
> > siyuan@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>> still
> > > >>>>>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with
> > > >> specifying
> > > >>> it
> > > >>>>>> from application)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>> Siyuan
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Hi,
Actually, I was thinking some operator attribute like this in populateDag:
dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.NUM_PARTITIONS, 2);
which could translate internally to:
dag.setAttribute(operator, OperatorContext.PARTITIONER, new
StatelessPartitioner<GenericTestOperator>(2));
But just setting number of partitions would be easier in populateDag and
user does not need to worry about which partitioner to use.
Thanks,
Isha
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Is the suggestion that operators implement the partitioner interface and
> pass-through the calls to the partitioner implementation set as a property
> or is it something else?
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Gaurav Gupta <ga...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I also think property works better because as Thomas mentioned it can be
> > configured like any other operator component.
> >
> > Thanks
> > - Gaurav
> >
> > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to
> 'set
> > > number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up
> > > Stateless Partitioner as default?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isha
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I actually think a property works better as it will let you configure
> > the
> > >> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka
> consumer.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> sent from mobile
> > >> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to
> have
> > an
> > >>> annotation
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <
> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the
> call
> > >> to
> > >>>> the partitioner implementation?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Idea for an annotation maybe?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <
> siyuan@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator
> > >> and
> > >>>>> still
> > >>>>>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with
> > >> specifying
> > >>> it
> > >>>>>> from application)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>> Siyuan
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
Is the suggestion that operators implement the partitioner interface and
pass-through the calls to the partitioner implementation set as a property
or is it something else?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Gaurav Gupta <ga...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> I also think property works better because as Thomas mentioned it can be
> configured like any other operator component.
>
> Thanks
> - Gaurav
>
> > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >
> > I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to 'set
> > number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up
> > Stateless Partitioner as default?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isha
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I actually think a property works better as it will let you configure
> the
> >> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka consumer.
> >>
> >> --
> >> sent from mobile
> >> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to have
> an
> >>> annotation
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call
> >> to
> >>>> the partitioner implementation?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Idea for an annotation maybe?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator
> >> and
> >>>>> still
> >>>>>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with
> >> specifying
> >>> it
> >>>>>> from application)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Siyuan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Gaurav Gupta <ga...@datatorrent.com>.
I also think property works better because as Thomas mentioned it can be configured like any other operator component.
Thanks
- Gaurav
> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to 'set
> number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up
> Stateless Partitioner as default?
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I actually think a property works better as it will let you configure the
>> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka consumer.
>>
>> --
>> sent from mobile
>> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to have an
>>> annotation
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call
>> to
>>>> the partitioner implementation?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Idea for an annotation maybe?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator
>> and
>>>>> still
>>>>>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with
>> specifying
>>> it
>>>>>> from application)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Siyuan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
I also think property works better, though, can be an easier API to 'set
number of partitions for operator to N' And internally it can pick up
Stateless Partitioner as default?
Thanks,
Isha
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> I actually think a property works better as it will let you configure the
> partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka consumer.
>
> --
> sent from mobile
> On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to have an
> > annotation
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call
> to
> > > the partitioner implementation?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Idea for an annotation maybe?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator
> and
> > > > still
> > > > > I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with
> specifying
> > it
> > > > > from application)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Siyuan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>.
I actually think a property works better as it will let you configure the
partitioner like any other operator component. Like the Kafka consumer.
--
sent from mobile
On Nov 19, 2015 4:51 PM, "Siyuan Hua" <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to have an
> annotation
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call to
> > the partitioner implementation?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Idea for an annotation maybe?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and
> > > still
> > > > I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying
> it
> > > > from application)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Siyuan
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>.
Thomas, this is what I'm going to do. But I like Pramod's idea to have an
annotation
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call to
> the partitioner implementation?
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Idea for an annotation maybe?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and
> > still
> > > I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
> > > from application)
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Siyuan
> > >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>.
Why not implement the interface on the operator and delegate the call to
the partitioner implementation?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Idea for an annotation maybe?
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and
> still
> > I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
> > from application)
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Siyuan
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
Idea for an annotation maybe?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and still
> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
> from application)
>
>
> Best,
> Siyuan
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Chandni Singh <ch...@datatorrent.com>.
I think what Siyuan needs is a way for an Operator to express that a
certain Partitioner is the default Partitioner at the time of writing code.
I like Pramod's idea.
Delegating to another partitioner is a way to do it right now but maybe we
should have a simple way of doing it and Pramod's suggestion fits well.
Thanks,
Chandni
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> I think the ask is to not have the user do additional configuration and
> also not have the original operator implement Partitioner interface
> directly.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Chetan Narsude (cnarsude) <
> cnarsude@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > Ram is on the money. Partitioner attribute will do exactly the same.
> >
> > ‹
> > Chetan
> >
> >
> > On 11/19/15, 4:07 PM, "Munagala Ramanath" <ra...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >
> > >You can just set the property:
> > >dt.application.<app-name>.operator.<op-name>.attr.PARTITIONER
> > >to com.datatorrent.common.partitioner.StatelessPartitioner:N
> > >where N is the number of desired partitions.
> > >
> > > Is that what you're trying to do ?
> > >
> > >Ram
> > >
> > >On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and
> > >>still
> > >> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying
> it
> > >> from application)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Siyuan
> >
> >
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
I think the ask is to not have the user do additional configuration and
also not have the original operator implement Partitioner interface
directly.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Chetan Narsude (cnarsude) <
cnarsude@cisco.com> wrote:
> Ram is on the money. Partitioner attribute will do exactly the same.
>
> ‹
> Chetan
>
>
> On 11/19/15, 4:07 PM, "Munagala Ramanath" <ra...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> >You can just set the property:
> >dt.application.<app-name>.operator.<op-name>.attr.PARTITIONER
> >to com.datatorrent.common.partitioner.StatelessPartitioner:N
> >where N is the number of desired partitions.
> >
> > Is that what you're trying to do ?
> >
> >Ram
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and
> >>still
> >> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
> >> from application)
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Siyuan
>
>
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by "Chetan Narsude (cnarsude)" <cn...@cisco.com>.
Ram is on the money. Partitioner attribute will do exactly the same.
‹
Chetan
On 11/19/15, 4:07 PM, "Munagala Ramanath" <ra...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>You can just set the property:
>dt.application.<app-name>.operator.<op-name>.attr.PARTITIONER
>to com.datatorrent.common.partitioner.StatelessPartitioner:N
>where N is the number of desired partitions.
>
> Is that what you're trying to do ?
>
>Ram
>
>On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com>
>wrote:
>> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and
>>still
>> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
>> from application)
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Siyuan
Re: Is there a way of defining a default partitioner for an operator
besides implement partitioner interface
Posted by Munagala Ramanath <ra...@datatorrent.com>.
You can just set the property:
dt.application.<app-name>.operator.<op-name>.attr.PARTITIONER
to com.datatorrent.common.partitioner.StatelessPartitioner:N
where N is the number of desired partitions.
Is that what you're trying to do ?
Ram
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Siyuan Hua <si...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Sometimes I want to separate the Partitioner logic from operator and still
> I want to have default partitioner for the operator (with specifying it
> from application)
>
>
> Best,
> Siyuan