You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> on 2022/07/01 09:28:40 UTC

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Hi Alex,

In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext. This is
passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the Source
should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.

In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the current subtask
is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as well. This
would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the data
generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.

Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit source,
personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on scaling.

Thanks,

Jiangjie (Becket) Qin

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter: it is
> designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method that takes a
> RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface for
> the new Source
> API.
>
> This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting use case: in
> the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the current
> parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not supported,
> the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
>
> I see two possibilities:
> 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the DataGeneratorSource
> constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully configured
> by the user in the main method.
> 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split. The
> initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon splits creation
> in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is available.
>
> The second approach makes implementation rather significantly more
> complex since we cannot simply wrap NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer in
> that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind of
> autoscaling, the source rate will match the original configuration. But I'm
> not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where scaling the
> input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo purposes.
>
> Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <da...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm very happy with this. +1
> >
> > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC implementations
> > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good idea, in my
> > opinion.
> >
> > Best,
> > David
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <re...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alexander,
> > >
> > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some thoughts.
> > >
> > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an initializer on it
> > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator function are
> > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function like “open”
> > in
> > > the interface could let the function to make some initializations in
> the
> > > task initializing stage.
> > >
> > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s a
> > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we could reuse
> this
> > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a common feature
> > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP and a lot of
> > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source first.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Qingsheng
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> alexander@ververica.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jing,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points you make
> and
> > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of providing a
> universal
> > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based *DataGeneratorSource*
> > > resides
> > > > in the *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > think
> > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name) next to the
> > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > > >
> > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> *DataGenTableSource
> > > *has
> > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I believe it is
> > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream users of the
> > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually converge on
> > the
> > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds like a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <ji...@ververica.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and the source
> > code
> > > of
> > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source" instead of
> > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as following:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on SourceFunction is a
> > stateful
> > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
> > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current implementation
> based
> > > on
> > > >> SourceFunction.
> > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based on the new
> > > Source
> > > >> API.
> > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for DataStream
> > and
> > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource should be
> > > replaced
> > > >> with the new one.
> > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to support
> > > various
> > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream, controllable
> > > events
> > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> which turns out that
> > > >>
> > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to replace the
> > > current
> > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very different
> > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
> > implementation.
> > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to support
> stateless
> > > and
> > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > > >>
> > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It might take
> > > months.
> > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and growing up
> > > iteratively.
> > > >>
> > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless event
> generation
> > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > > >> The will be a period of time that both DataGeneratorSource will be
> > used
> > > by
> > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be then
> > deprecated,
> > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer to be
> able
> > > to
> > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on Source API
> > which
> > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to support
> both
> > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
> > > implementation.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Jing
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing confusion
> (I
> > > know
> > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource is already
> > > better,
> > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better idea.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Martijn
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes though. The
> > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data described by the
> > > Table
> > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator concept
> > which
> > > is
> > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in contrast is
> > > supposed
> > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their custom data.
> > Another
> > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be stateful and
> > has
> > > to
> > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely driven by
> the
> > > >>> input
> > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain deterministic. Are you
> > sure
> > > it
> > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could think of
> > using
> > > a
> > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users (something
> > like
> > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Best,
> > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the discussion. +1
> > > overall
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this focussed on the
> > > >>>>> DataStream
> > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have a Datagen
> > > >>> connector
> > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
> interface. I
> > > >>> think
> > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic Datagen
> > > connector
> > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be a new one
> in
> > > the
> > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table landscape is using
> > this
> > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Martijn
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be useful to
> have
> > > >>> such
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> DataSourceGenerator
> > > >>>>> proposed
> > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration into the
> > Table/SQL
> > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource reusing
> > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <yx...@163.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is really helpful
> > > >>> during
> > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a changelog
> stream
> > by
> > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can practice flink sql
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>>> cdc
> > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a ChangelogSocketExample
> > > >>> class[1]
> > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by 'nc' command.
> > Can
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new datagen source?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<al...@ververica.com>
> > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should actually be
> easier
> > > >>> than
> > > >>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends CheckpointListener
> > > >>> interface
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible to achieve
> > > >>>>> similar
> > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator uses an
> > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider adding the
> > ability
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>> supply something like a DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory that
> > would
> > > >>>>> allow
> > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
> > > >>> implementations
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source API the
> > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed further away
> from
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data and splits
> > [1].
> > > >>> At
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is hardwired into the
> > > >>>>> internals
> > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be possible to
> > provide a
> > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to checkpointing in the
> > new
> > > >>>>> Source
> > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the SplitEnumerator
> > serializer
> > > >>> (
> > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In theory, it
> > > >>> should
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the generator
> > function
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the serialize()
> method
> > > >>> gets
> > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you still won't
> get
> > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you currently use
> > > >>> (this
> > > >>>>> info
> > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator implementation itself,
> > the
> > > >>> new
> > > >>>>>>> Source
> > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of verifying
> > checkpoints
> > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I do not see
> an
> > > >>>>>> immediate
> > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way of checking
> > the
> > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that does not
> rely
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source that can
> > control
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth like this in
> the
> > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>> elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > > >>> boolean
> > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238: Introduce
> > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Data
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about deprecating
> the
> > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an easy-to-use
> > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed so that the
> > > >>> current
> > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations could be
> > phased
> > > >>>>> out
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the internal Flink
> > tests.
> > > >>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic DataGeneratorSource
> capable
> > of
> > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a user-supplied
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

A quick update:
- Since there is currently another initiative ongoing for building rate
limiting that potentially covers a wider range of use cases, it was decided
not to expose the RateLimiter API publicly in this FLIP. It now has a
package private visibility and can later be swapped with a more universal
interface
- The sourceRatePerSecond parameter type was changed from long to double to
allow generating less than one event per second

Best,
Alexander Fedulov

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 5:23 PM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I updated the FLIP [1] to make it more extensible with the introduction of *SourceReaderFactory.
> *It gives users the ability to further customize the data generation and
> emission process if needed. I also incorporated the suggestion from
> Qingsheng and moved to the generator function design with an initializer
> method to support more sophisticated functions with non-serializable
> fields. I am personally pretty happy with the current prototype [2], [3].
> Let me know if you have any other feedback, otherwise, I am going to start
> the vote.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> [2]
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/e5f8e555543a67b9983c42b5db2a7617361fa459/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV4.java#L52
> [3]
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/e5f8e555543a67b9983c42b5db2a7617361fa459/flink-examples/flink-examples-streaming/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/examples/wordcount/GeneratorSourcePOC.java#L92
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:08 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Becket,
>>
>> interesting points about the discrepancies in the *RuntimeContext*
>> "wrapping" throughout the framework, but I agree - this is something that
>> needs to be tackled separately.
>> For now, I adjusted the FLIP and the PoC implementation to only expose
>> the parallelism.
>>
>> Best,
>> Alexander Fedulov
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 2:42 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> Personally I prefer the latter option, i.e. just add the
>>> currentParallelism() method. It is easy to add more stuff to the
>>> SourceReaderContext in the future, and it is likely that most of the
>>> stuff
>>> in the RuntimeContext is not required by the SourceReader
>>> implementations.
>>> For the purpose of this FLIP, adding the method is probably good enough.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't see a consistent pattern adopted in the project to
>>> handle similar cases. The FunctionContext wraps the RuntimeContext and
>>> only
>>> exposes necessary stuff. CEPRuntimeContext extends the RuntimeContext and
>>> overrides some methods that it does not want to expose with exception
>>> throwing logic. Some internal context classes simply expose the entire
>>> RuntimeContext with some additional methods. If we want to make things
>>> clean, I'd imagine all these variations of context can become some
>>> specific
>>> combination of a ReadOnlyRuntimeContext and some "write" methods. But
>>> this
>>> may require a closer look at all these cases to make sure the
>>> ReadOnlyRuntimeContext is generally suitable. I feel that it will take
>>> some
>>> time and could be a bigger discussion than the data generator source
>>> itself. So maybe we can just go with adding a method at the moment. And
>>> evolving the SourceReaderContext to use the ReadOnlyRuntimeContext in the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:31 PM Alexander Fedulov <
>>> alexander@ververica.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Becket,
>>> >
>>> > I agree with you. We could introduce a *ReadOnlyRuntimeContext* that
>>> would
>>> > act as a holder for the *RuntimeContext* data. This would also require
>>> > read-only wrappers for the exposed fields, such as *ExecutionConfig*.
>>> > Alternatively, we just add the *currentParallelism()* method for now
>>> and
>>> > see if anything else might actually be needed later on. What do you
>>> think?
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Alexander Fedulov
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Alex,
>>> > >
>>> > > While it is true that the RuntimeContext gives access to all the
>>> stuff
>>> > the
>>> > > framework can provide, it seems a little overkilling for the
>>> > SourceReader.
>>> > > It is probably OK to expose all the read-only information in the
>>> > > RuntimeContext to the SourceReader, but we may want to hide the
>>> "write"
>>> > > methods, such as creating states, writing stuff to distributed cache,
>>> > etc,
>>> > > because these methods may not work well with the SourceReader design
>>> and
>>> > > cause confusion. For example, users may wonder why the
>>> snapshotState()
>>> > > method exists while they can use the state directly.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> > >
>>> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:37 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>>> > alexander@ververica.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi Becket,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Here is also my POC branch [1].
>>> > > > DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on
>>> [2].
>>> > It
>>> > > is
>>> > > > based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
>>> > > > A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > [1]
>>> > https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
>>> > > > [2]
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
>>> > > > [3]
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
>>> > > > [4]
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Best,
>>> > > > Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <
>>> > > alexander@ververica.com
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hi Becket,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
>>> > > > > Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
>>> > > > >  getRuntimeContext() methods?
>>> > > > > One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the
>>> > RuntimeContext
>>> > > > > directly if we expose it.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Best,
>>> > > > > Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> Hi Alex,
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
>>> > > > >> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as
>>> well.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Thanks,
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>>> > > > alexander@ververica.com
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > Hi Becket,
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the
>>> parallelism
>>> > to
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > >> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of
>>> > > > parallelism
>>> > > > >> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to
>>> consider
>>> > > it
>>> > > > >> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it
>>> should
>>> > > be
>>> > > > as
>>> > > > >> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous
>>> > SourceReaderContext
>>> > > > >> > implementation
>>> > > > >> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > public int currentParallelism() {
>>> > > > >> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
>>> > > > >> > }
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Is that what you had in mind?
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Best,
>>> > > > >> > Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <
>>> becket.qin@gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > > Hi Alex,
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a
>>> > SourceReaderContext.
>>> > > > >> This
>>> > > > >> > is
>>> > > > >> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And
>>> supposedly the
>>> > > > >> Source
>>> > > > >> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the
>>> > > current
>>> > > > >> > subtask
>>> > > > >> > > is available, but we can probably add the current
>>> parallelism as
>>> > > > well.
>>> > > > >> > This
>>> > > > >> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only
>>> for the
>>> > > > data
>>> > > > >> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate
>>> FLIP.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit
>>> > > source,
>>> > > > >> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate
>>> untouched on
>>> > > > >> scaling.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>>> > > > >> > alexander@ververica.com>
>>> > > > >> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Hi all,
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing
>>> FlinkConnectorRateLimiter:
>>> > > it
>>> > > > is
>>> > > > >> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open()
>>> method
>>> > > that
>>> > > > >> > takes a
>>> > > > >> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different
>>> > interface
>>> > > > for
>>> > > > >> > > > the new Source
>>> > > > >> > > > API.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the
>>> rate-limiting
>>> > > use
>>> > > > >> > case:
>>> > > > >> > > in
>>> > > > >> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve
>>> the
>>> > > > current
>>> > > > >> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this
>>> is
>>> > not
>>> > > > >> > > supported,
>>> > > > >> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available
>>> in the
>>> > > > >> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have
>>> > access.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > I see two possibilities:
>>> > > > >> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the
>>> > > > DataGeneratorSource
>>> > > > >> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be
>>> > fully
>>> > > > >> > > configured
>>> > > > >> > > > by the user in the main method.
>>> > > > >> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a
>>> > Split.
>>> > > > The
>>> > > > >> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon
>>> > > splits
>>> > > > >> > > creation
>>> > > > >> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism
>>> is
>>> > > > >> available.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather
>>> significantly
>>> > > more
>>> > > > >> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
>>> > > > >> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
>>> > > > >> > > in
>>> > > > >> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any
>>> > kind
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original
>>> > > > configuration.
>>> > > > >> But
>>> > > > >> > > I'm
>>> > > > >> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios
>>> > where
>>> > > > >> scaling
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for
>>> demo
>>> > > > >> purposes.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
>>> > > > >> danderson@apache.org>
>>> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in
>>> demos/POC
>>> > > > >> > > implementations
>>> > > > >> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a
>>> good
>>> > > > >> idea, in
>>> > > > >> > > my
>>> > > > >> > > > > opinion.
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > David
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
>>> > > > >> renqschn@gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some
>>> > > > thoughts.
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an
>>> > > initializer
>>> > > > >> on it
>>> > > > >> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the
>>> generator
>>> > > > >> function
>>> > > > >> > are
>>> > > > >> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a
>>> > function
>>> > > > like
>>> > > > >> > > “open”
>>> > > > >> > > > > in
>>> > > > >> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
>>> > > > >> initializations
>>> > > > >> > in
>>> > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > task initializing stage.
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned,
>>> > there’s
>>> > > a
>>> > > > >> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe
>>> we
>>> > > could
>>> > > > >> reuse
>>> > > > >> > > > this
>>> > > > >> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as
>>> a
>>> > > common
>>> > > > >> > > feature
>>> > > > >> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another
>>> FLIP
>>> > > > and a
>>> > > > >> > lot
>>> > > > >> > > of
>>> > > > >> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source
>>> > > first.
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > Qingsheng
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
>>> > > > >> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the
>>> > points
>>> > > > you
>>> > > > >> > make
>>> > > > >> > > > and
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of
>>> > > providing
>>> > > > a
>>> > > > >> > > > universal
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
>>> > > > >> > *DataGeneratorSource*
>>> > > > >> > > > > > resides
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > in the
>>> > > > >> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
>>> > > > >> > > > > think
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same
>>> > name)
>>> > > > >> next to
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
>>> > > > >> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
>>> > > > >> > > > *DataGenTableSource
>>> > > > >> > > > > > *has
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality
>>> (*rowsPerSecond*). I
>>> > > > >> believe it
>>> > > > >> > > is
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the
>>> DataStream
>>> > > users
>>> > > > >> of
>>> > > > >> > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to
>>> eventually
>>> > > > >> converge
>>> > > > >> > > on
>>> > > > >> > > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it
>>> > sounds
>>> > > > >> like a
>>> > > > >> > > > good
>>> > > > >> > > > > > idea
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <
>>> > > jing@ververica.com
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this
>>> thread and
>>> > > the
>>> > > > >> > source
>>> > > > >> > > > > code
>>> > > > >> > > > > > of
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used
>>> "Source"
>>> > > > >> instead of
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could
>>> summarized
>>> > as
>>> > > > >> > > following:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on
>>> > > SourceFunction
>>> > > > >> is a
>>> > > > >> > > > > stateful
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source
>>> > i.e.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
>>> > > > >> implementation
>>> > > > >> > > > based
>>> > > > >> > > > > > on
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed
>>> > based
>>> > > on
>>> > > > >> the
>>> > > > >> > > new
>>> > > > >> > > > > > Source
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> API.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used
>>> both
>>> > for
>>> > > > >> > > DataStream
>>> > > > >> > > > > and
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current
>>> DataGeneratorSource
>>> > > > >> should be
>>> > > > >> > > > > > replaced
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> with the new one.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be
>>> pluggable
>>> > to
>>> > > > >> > support
>>> > > > >> > > > > > various
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog
>>> stream,
>>> > > > >> > > controllable
>>> > > > >> > > > > > events
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> which turns out that
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big
>>> effort to
>>> > > > >> replace
>>> > > > >> > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > current
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a
>>> very
>>> > > > >> > different
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for
>>> the
>>> > new
>>> > > > >> > > > > implementation.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated
>>> to
>>> > > > support
>>> > > > >> > > > stateless
>>> > > > >> > > > > > and
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one
>>> solution.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one
>>> shot, It
>>> > > > might
>>> > > > >> > take
>>> > > > >> > > > > > months.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and
>>> > > growing
>>> > > > up
>>> > > > >> > > > > > iteratively.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on
>>> stateless
>>> > > event
>>> > > > >> > > > generation
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
>>> > > > >> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both
>>> > > DataGeneratorSource
>>> > > > >> will
>>> > > > >> > be
>>> > > > >> > > > > used
>>> > > > >> > > > > > by
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource
>>> will be
>>> > > then
>>> > > > >> > > > > deprecated,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of
>>> > > StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
>>> > > > >> to
>>> > > > >> > be
>>> > > > >> > > > able
>>> > > > >> > > > > > to
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
>>> > > > >> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource"
>>> based on
>>> > > > >> Source
>>> > > > >> > API
>>> > > > >> > > > > which
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is
>>> impossible
>>> > to
>>> > > > >> > support
>>> > > > >> > > > both
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one
>>> > GeneratorSource
>>> > > > >> > > > > > implementation.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Jing
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
>>> > > > >> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not
>>> > causing
>>> > > > >> > > confusion
>>> > > > >> > > > (I
>>> > > > >> > > > > > know
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the
>>> > DataSupplierSource
>>> > > is
>>> > > > >> > > already
>>> > > > >> > > > > > better,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even
>>> better
>>> > > idea.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Martijn
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander
>>> Fedulov <
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes
>>> > > though.
>>> > > > >> The
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data
>>> > > > described
>>> > > > >> by
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > Table
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the
>>> > RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
>>> > > > >> > concept
>>> > > > >> > > > > which
>>> > > > >> > > > > > is
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API
>>> in
>>> > > > >> contrast
>>> > > > >> > is
>>> > > > >> > > > > > supposed
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their
>>> > > custom
>>> > > > >> data.
>>> > > > >> > > > > Another
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed
>>> to be
>>> > > > >> stateful
>>> > > > >> > > and
>>> > > > >> > > > > has
>>> > > > >> > > > > > to
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is
>>> > purely
>>> > > > >> driven
>>> > > > >> > by
>>> > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> input
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain
>>> > > deterministic.
>>> > > > >> Are
>>> > > > >> > you
>>> > > > >> > > > > sure
>>> > > > >> > > > > > it
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We
>>> > could
>>> > > > >> think
>>> > > > >> > of
>>> > > > >> > > > > using
>>> > > > >> > > > > > a
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the
>>> > users
>>> > > > >> > > (something
>>> > > > >> > > > > like
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
>>> > > > >> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
>>> > > > >> discussion.
>>> > > > >> > +1
>>> > > > >> > > > > > overall
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this
>>> > > > focussed
>>> > > > >> on
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we
>>> > have
>>> > > a
>>> > > > >> > Datagen
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> connector
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this
>>> > target
>>> > > > >> > > > interface. I
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> think
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one
>>> > generic
>>> > > > >> Datagen
>>> > > > >> > > > > > connector
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that
>>> would
>>> > be
>>> > > a
>>> > > > >> new
>>> > > > >> > one
>>> > > > >> > > > in
>>> > > > >> > > > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table
>>> > > landscape
>>> > > > is
>>> > > > >> > > using
>>> > > > >> > > > > this
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander
>>> > Fedulov <
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it
>>> would be
>>> > > > >> useful
>>> > > > >> > to
>>> > > > >> > > > have
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> such
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> a
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
>>> > > > >> > > > DataSourceGenerator
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see
>>> integration
>>> > > into
>>> > > > >> the
>>> > > > >> > > > > Table/SQL
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource
>>> > > reusing
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
>>> > > > >> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use
>>> is
>>> > > > really
>>> > > > >> > > helpful
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> during
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce
>>> a
>>> > > > >> changelog
>>> > > > >> > > > stream
>>> > > > >> > > > > by
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can
>>> > > practice
>>> > > > >> flink
>>> > > > >> > > sql
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> with
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
>>> > > > >> > ChangelogSocketExample
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> class[1]
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data
>>> by
>>> > > 'nc'
>>> > > > >> > > command.
>>> > > > >> > > > > Can
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> we
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the
>>> new
>>> > > > datagen
>>> > > > >> > > source?
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
>>> > > > >> > alexander@ververica.com
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should
>>> > > actually
>>> > > > >> be
>>> > > > >> > > > easier
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> than
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
>>> > > > >> CheckpointListener
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> interface
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be
>>> > possible
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > >> > > achieve
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> similar
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the
>>> generator
>>> > > > uses
>>> > > > >> an
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could
>>> consider
>>> > > adding
>>> > > > >> the
>>> > > > >> > > > > ability
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a
>>> > > > DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
>>> > > > >> > that
>>> > > > >> > > > > would
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> allow
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with
>>> > customized
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> implementations
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> for
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander
>>> Fedulov
>>> > <
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new
>>> Source
>>> > > API
>>> > > > >> the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are
>>> pushed
>>> > > > further
>>> > > > >> > away
>>> > > > >> > > > from
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling
>>> data
>>> > > and
>>> > > > >> > splits
>>> > > > >> > > > > [1].
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> At
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is
>>> > > hardwired
>>> > > > >> into
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> internals
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be
>>> > > possible
>>> > > > >> to
>>> > > > >> > > > > provide a
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing
>>> purposes.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to
>>> > > > checkpointing
>>> > > > >> in
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > new
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Source
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the
>>> > > > SplitEnumerator
>>> > > > >> > > > > serializer
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> (
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method)
>>> [2].
>>> > In
>>> > > > >> theory,
>>> > > > >> > > it
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> should
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> be
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to
>>> the
>>> > > > >> generator
>>> > > > >> > > > > function
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> to
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
>>> > > > >> serialize()
>>> > > > >> > > > method
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> gets
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said,
>>> you
>>> > > still
>>> > > > >> > won't
>>> > > > >> > > > get
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that
>>> you
>>> > > > >> currently
>>> > > > >> > > use
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> (this
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> info
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator
>>> > > implementation
>>> > > > >> > > itself,
>>> > > > >> > > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> new
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of
>>> > > verifying
>>> > > > >> > > > > checkpoints
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at
>>> least
>>> > I
>>> > > do
>>> > > > >> not
>>> > > > >> > > see
>>> > > > >> > > > an
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a
>>> different
>>> > way
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >> > > checking
>>> > > > >> > > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation
>>> > that
>>> > > > does
>>> > > > >> > not
>>> > > > >> > > > rely
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> on
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> this
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
>>> > > > >> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator
>>> source
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > >> can
>>> > > > >> > > > > control
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support
>>> sth
>>> > > like
>>> > > > >> this
>>> > > > >> > in
>>> > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
>>> > > > >> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> boolean
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander
>>> Fedulov <
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238:
>>> > > > Introduce
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion
>>> about
>>> > > > >> > deprecating
>>> > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that
>>> an
>>> > > > >> > easy-to-use
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is
>>> needed
>>> > > so
>>> > > > >> that
>>> > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> current
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator
>>> > implementations
>>> > > > >> could
>>> > > > >> > be
>>> > > > >> > > > > phased
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> out
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the
>>> > > internal
>>> > > > >> Flink
>>> > > > >> > > > > tests.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> This
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic
>>> > > > DataGeneratorSource
>>> > > > >> > > > capable
>>> > > > >> > > > > of
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based
>>> on a
>>> > > > >> > > user-supplied
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> >
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

Hi all,

I updated the FLIP [1] to make it more extensible with the
introduction of *SourceReaderFactory.
*It gives users the ability to further customize the data generation and
emission process if needed. I also incorporated the suggestion from
Qingsheng and moved to the generator function design with an initializer
method to support more sophisticated functions with non-serializable
fields. I am personally pretty happy with the current prototype [2], [3].
Let me know if you have any other feedback, otherwise, I am going to start
the vote.

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
[2]
https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/e5f8e555543a67b9983c42b5db2a7617361fa459/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV4.java#L52
[3]
https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/e5f8e555543a67b9983c42b5db2a7617361fa459/flink-examples/flink-examples-streaming/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/examples/wordcount/GeneratorSourcePOC.java#L92

Best,
Alexander Fedulov




On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:08 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi Becket,
>
> interesting points about the discrepancies in the *RuntimeContext*
> "wrapping" throughout the framework, but I agree - this is something that
> needs to be tackled separately.
> For now, I adjusted the FLIP and the PoC implementation to only expose the
> parallelism.
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 2:42 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Personally I prefer the latter option, i.e. just add the
>> currentParallelism() method. It is easy to add more stuff to the
>> SourceReaderContext in the future, and it is likely that most of the stuff
>> in the RuntimeContext is not required by the SourceReader implementations.
>> For the purpose of this FLIP, adding the method is probably good enough.
>>
>> That said, I don't see a consistent pattern adopted in the project to
>> handle similar cases. The FunctionContext wraps the RuntimeContext and
>> only
>> exposes necessary stuff. CEPRuntimeContext extends the RuntimeContext and
>> overrides some methods that it does not want to expose with exception
>> throwing logic. Some internal context classes simply expose the entire
>> RuntimeContext with some additional methods. If we want to make things
>> clean, I'd imagine all these variations of context can become some
>> specific
>> combination of a ReadOnlyRuntimeContext and some "write" methods. But this
>> may require a closer look at all these cases to make sure the
>> ReadOnlyRuntimeContext is generally suitable. I feel that it will take
>> some
>> time and could be a bigger discussion than the data generator source
>> itself. So maybe we can just go with adding a method at the moment. And
>> evolving the SourceReaderContext to use the ReadOnlyRuntimeContext in the
>> future.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:31 PM Alexander Fedulov <alexander@ververica.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Becket,
>> >
>> > I agree with you. We could introduce a *ReadOnlyRuntimeContext* that
>> would
>> > act as a holder for the *RuntimeContext* data. This would also require
>> > read-only wrappers for the exposed fields, such as *ExecutionConfig*.
>> > Alternatively, we just add the *currentParallelism()* method for now and
>> > see if anything else might actually be needed later on. What do you
>> think?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Alexander Fedulov
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Alex,
>> > >
>> > > While it is true that the RuntimeContext gives access to all the stuff
>> > the
>> > > framework can provide, it seems a little overkilling for the
>> > SourceReader.
>> > > It is probably OK to expose all the read-only information in the
>> > > RuntimeContext to the SourceReader, but we may want to hide the
>> "write"
>> > > methods, such as creating states, writing stuff to distributed cache,
>> > etc,
>> > > because these methods may not work well with the SourceReader design
>> and
>> > > cause confusion. For example, users may wonder why the snapshotState()
>> > > method exists while they can use the state directly.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:37 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > alexander@ververica.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Becket,
>> > > >
>> > > > I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.
>> > > >
>> > > > Here is also my POC branch [1].
>> > > > DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on
>> [2].
>> > It
>> > > is
>> > > > based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
>> > > > A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]
>> > > >
>> > > > Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]
>> > https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
>> > > > [2]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
>> > > > [3]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
>> > > > [4]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi Becket,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
>> > > > > Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
>> > > > >  getRuntimeContext() methods?
>> > > > > One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the
>> > RuntimeContext
>> > > > > directly if we expose it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best,
>> > > > > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Hi Alex,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
>> > > > >> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Hi Becket,
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the
>> parallelism
>> > to
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of
>> > > > parallelism
>> > > > >> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to
>> consider
>> > > it
>> > > > >> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it
>> should
>> > > be
>> > > > as
>> > > > >> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous
>> > SourceReaderContext
>> > > > >> > implementation
>> > > > >> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > public int currentParallelism() {
>> > > > >> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
>> > > > >> > }
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Is that what you had in mind?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Best,
>> > > > >> > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <
>> becket.qin@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > Hi Alex,
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a
>> > SourceReaderContext.
>> > > > >> This
>> > > > >> > is
>> > > > >> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly
>> the
>> > > > >> Source
>> > > > >> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the
>> > > current
>> > > > >> > subtask
>> > > > >> > > is available, but we can probably add the current
>> parallelism as
>> > > > well.
>> > > > >> > This
>> > > > >> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for
>> the
>> > > > data
>> > > > >> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit
>> > > source,
>> > > > >> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate
>> untouched on
>> > > > >> scaling.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > >> > alexander@ververica.com>
>> > > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing
>> FlinkConnectorRateLimiter:
>> > > it
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open()
>> method
>> > > that
>> > > > >> > takes a
>> > > > >> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different
>> > interface
>> > > > for
>> > > > >> > > > the new Source
>> > > > >> > > > API.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the
>> rate-limiting
>> > > use
>> > > > >> > case:
>> > > > >> > > in
>> > > > >> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve
>> the
>> > > > current
>> > > > >> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this
>> is
>> > not
>> > > > >> > > supported,
>> > > > >> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in
>> the
>> > > > >> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have
>> > access.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > I see two possibilities:
>> > > > >> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the
>> > > > DataGeneratorSource
>> > > > >> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be
>> > fully
>> > > > >> > > configured
>> > > > >> > > > by the user in the main method.
>> > > > >> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a
>> > Split.
>> > > > The
>> > > > >> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon
>> > > splits
>> > > > >> > > creation
>> > > > >> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism
>> is
>> > > > >> available.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather
>> significantly
>> > > more
>> > > > >> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
>> > > > >> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
>> > > > >> > > in
>> > > > >> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any
>> > kind
>> > > of
>> > > > >> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original
>> > > > configuration.
>> > > > >> But
>> > > > >> > > I'm
>> > > > >> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios
>> > where
>> > > > >> scaling
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for
>> demo
>> > > > >> purposes.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Best,
>> > > > >> > > > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
>> > > > >> danderson@apache.org>
>> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
>> > > > >> > > implementations
>> > > > >> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a
>> good
>> > > > >> idea, in
>> > > > >> > > my
>> > > > >> > > > > opinion.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > David
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
>> > > > >> renqschn@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some
>> > > > thoughts.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an
>> > > initializer
>> > > > >> on it
>> > > > >> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the
>> generator
>> > > > >> function
>> > > > >> > are
>> > > > >> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a
>> > function
>> > > > like
>> > > > >> > > “open”
>> > > > >> > > > > in
>> > > > >> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
>> > > > >> initializations
>> > > > >> > in
>> > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > task initializing stage.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned,
>> > there’s
>> > > a
>> > > > >> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we
>> > > could
>> > > > >> reuse
>> > > > >> > > > this
>> > > > >> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a
>> > > common
>> > > > >> > > feature
>> > > > >> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another
>> FLIP
>> > > > and a
>> > > > >> > lot
>> > > > >> > > of
>> > > > >> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source
>> > > first.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > >> > > > > > Qingsheng
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > >> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
>> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the
>> > points
>> > > > you
>> > > > >> > make
>> > > > >> > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of
>> > > providing
>> > > > a
>> > > > >> > > > universal
>> > > > >> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
>> > > > >> > *DataGeneratorSource*
>> > > > >> > > > > > resides
>> > > > >> > > > > > > in the
>> > > > >> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
>> > > > >> > > > > think
>> > > > >> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same
>> > name)
>> > > > >> next to
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
>> > > > >> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
>> > > > >> > > > *DataGenTableSource
>> > > > >> > > > > > *has
>> > > > >> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*).
>> I
>> > > > >> believe it
>> > > > >> > > is
>> > > > >> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the
>> DataStream
>> > > users
>> > > > >> of
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to
>> eventually
>> > > > >> converge
>> > > > >> > > on
>> > > > >> > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it
>> > sounds
>> > > > >> like a
>> > > > >> > > > good
>> > > > >> > > > > > idea
>> > > > >> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <
>> > > jing@ververica.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread
>> and
>> > > the
>> > > > >> > source
>> > > > >> > > > > code
>> > > > >> > > > > > of
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used
>> "Source"
>> > > > >> instead of
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could
>> summarized
>> > as
>> > > > >> > > following:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on
>> > > SourceFunction
>> > > > >> is a
>> > > > >> > > > > stateful
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source
>> > i.e.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
>> > > > >> implementation
>> > > > >> > > > based
>> > > > >> > > > > > on
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed
>> > based
>> > > on
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > new
>> > > > >> > > > > > Source
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> API.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both
>> > for
>> > > > >> > > DataStream
>> > > > >> > > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current
>> DataGeneratorSource
>> > > > >> should be
>> > > > >> > > > > > replaced
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> with the new one.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be
>> pluggable
>> > to
>> > > > >> > support
>> > > > >> > > > > > various
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog
>> stream,
>> > > > >> > > controllable
>> > > > >> > > > > > events
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> which turns out that
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort
>> to
>> > > > >> replace
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > current
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a
>> very
>> > > > >> > different
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the
>> > new
>> > > > >> > > > > implementation.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to
>> > > > support
>> > > > >> > > > stateless
>> > > > >> > > > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one
>> shot, It
>> > > > might
>> > > > >> > take
>> > > > >> > > > > > months.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and
>> > > growing
>> > > > up
>> > > > >> > > > > > iteratively.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on
>> stateless
>> > > event
>> > > > >> > > > generation
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
>> > > > >> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both
>> > > DataGeneratorSource
>> > > > >> will
>> > > > >> > be
>> > > > >> > > > > used
>> > > > >> > > > > > by
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will
>> be
>> > > then
>> > > > >> > > > > deprecated,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of
>> > > StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
>> > > > >> to
>> > > > >> > be
>> > > > >> > > > able
>> > > > >> > > > > > to
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
>> > > > >> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource"
>> based on
>> > > > >> Source
>> > > > >> > API
>> > > > >> > > > > which
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is
>> impossible
>> > to
>> > > > >> > support
>> > > > >> > > > both
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one
>> > GeneratorSource
>> > > > >> > > > > > implementation.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Jing
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
>> > > > >> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not
>> > causing
>> > > > >> > > confusion
>> > > > >> > > > (I
>> > > > >> > > > > > know
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the
>> > DataSupplierSource
>> > > is
>> > > > >> > > already
>> > > > >> > > > > > better,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even
>> better
>> > > idea.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Martijn
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander
>> Fedulov <
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes
>> > > though.
>> > > > >> The
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data
>> > > > described
>> > > > >> by
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > Table
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the
>> > RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
>> > > > >> > concept
>> > > > >> > > > > which
>> > > > >> > > > > > is
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API
>> in
>> > > > >> contrast
>> > > > >> > is
>> > > > >> > > > > > supposed
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their
>> > > custom
>> > > > >> data.
>> > > > >> > > > > Another
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to
>> be
>> > > > >> stateful
>> > > > >> > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > has
>> > > > >> > > > > > to
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is
>> > purely
>> > > > >> driven
>> > > > >> > by
>> > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> input
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain
>> > > deterministic.
>> > > > >> Are
>> > > > >> > you
>> > > > >> > > > > sure
>> > > > >> > > > > > it
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We
>> > could
>> > > > >> think
>> > > > >> > of
>> > > > >> > > > > using
>> > > > >> > > > > > a
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the
>> > users
>> > > > >> > > (something
>> > > > >> > > > > like
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
>> > > > >> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
>> > > > >> discussion.
>> > > > >> > +1
>> > > > >> > > > > > overall
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this
>> > > > focussed
>> > > > >> on
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we
>> > have
>> > > a
>> > > > >> > Datagen
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> connector
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this
>> > target
>> > > > >> > > > interface. I
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> think
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one
>> > generic
>> > > > >> Datagen
>> > > > >> > > > > > connector
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that
>> would
>> > be
>> > > a
>> > > > >> new
>> > > > >> > one
>> > > > >> > > > in
>> > > > >> > > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table
>> > > landscape
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> > > using
>> > > > >> > > > > this
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander
>> > Fedulov <
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it
>> would be
>> > > > >> useful
>> > > > >> > to
>> > > > >> > > > have
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> such
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> a
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
>> > > > >> > > > DataSourceGenerator
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see
>> integration
>> > > into
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > Table/SQL
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource
>> > > reusing
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
>> > > > >> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
>> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use
>> is
>> > > > really
>> > > > >> > > helpful
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> during
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a
>> > > > >> changelog
>> > > > >> > > > stream
>> > > > >> > > > > by
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can
>> > > practice
>> > > > >> flink
>> > > > >> > > sql
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> with
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
>> > > > >> > ChangelogSocketExample
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> class[1]
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data
>> by
>> > > 'nc'
>> > > > >> > > command.
>> > > > >> > > > > Can
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> we
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new
>> > > > datagen
>> > > > >> > > source?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
>> > > > >> > alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should
>> > > actually
>> > > > >> be
>> > > > >> > > > easier
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> than
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
>> > > > >> CheckpointListener
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> interface
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be
>> > possible
>> > > > to
>> > > > >> > > achieve
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> similar
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the
>> generator
>> > > > uses
>> > > > >> an
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider
>> > > adding
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > ability
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a
>> > > > DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
>> > > > >> > that
>> > > > >> > > > > would
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> allow
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with
>> > customized
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> implementations
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander
>> Fedulov
>> > <
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new
>> Source
>> > > API
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed
>> > > > further
>> > > > >> > away
>> > > > >> > > > from
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling
>> data
>> > > and
>> > > > >> > splits
>> > > > >> > > > > [1].
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> At
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is
>> > > hardwired
>> > > > >> into
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> internals
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be
>> > > possible
>> > > > >> to
>> > > > >> > > > > provide a
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to
>> > > > checkpointing
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > new
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Source
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the
>> > > > SplitEnumerator
>> > > > >> > > > > serializer
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> (
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method)
>> [2].
>> > In
>> > > > >> theory,
>> > > > >> > > it
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> should
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> be
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to
>> the
>> > > > >> generator
>> > > > >> > > > > function
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> to
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
>> > > > >> serialize()
>> > > > >> > > > method
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> gets
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said,
>> you
>> > > still
>> > > > >> > won't
>> > > > >> > > > get
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that
>> you
>> > > > >> currently
>> > > > >> > > use
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> (this
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> info
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator
>> > > implementation
>> > > > >> > > itself,
>> > > > >> > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> new
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of
>> > > verifying
>> > > > >> > > > > checkpoints
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at
>> least
>> > I
>> > > do
>> > > > >> not
>> > > > >> > > see
>> > > > >> > > > an
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different
>> > way
>> > > of
>> > > > >> > > checking
>> > > > >> > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation
>> > that
>> > > > does
>> > > > >> > not
>> > > > >> > > > rely
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> this
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
>> > > > >> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator
>> source
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> can
>> > > > >> > > > > control
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support
>> sth
>> > > like
>> > > > >> this
>> > > > >> > in
>> > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
>> > > > >> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> boolean
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander
>> Fedulov <
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238:
>> > > > Introduce
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion
>> about
>> > > > >> > deprecating
>> > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that
>> an
>> > > > >> > easy-to-use
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is
>> needed
>> > > so
>> > > > >> that
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> current
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator
>> > implementations
>> > > > >> could
>> > > > >> > be
>> > > > >> > > > > phased
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> out
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the
>> > > internal
>> > > > >> Flink
>> > > > >> > > > > tests.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> This
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic
>> > > > DataGeneratorSource
>> > > > >> > > > capable
>> > > > >> > > > > of
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on
>> a
>> > > > >> > > user-supplied
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

Hi Becket,

interesting points about the discrepancies in the *RuntimeContext*
"wrapping" throughout the framework, but I agree - this is something that
needs to be tackled separately.
For now, I adjusted the FLIP and the PoC implementation to only expose the
parallelism.

Best,
Alexander Fedulov

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 2:42 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> Personally I prefer the latter option, i.e. just add the
> currentParallelism() method. It is easy to add more stuff to the
> SourceReaderContext in the future, and it is likely that most of the stuff
> in the RuntimeContext is not required by the SourceReader implementations.
> For the purpose of this FLIP, adding the method is probably good enough.
>
> That said, I don't see a consistent pattern adopted in the project to
> handle similar cases. The FunctionContext wraps the RuntimeContext and only
> exposes necessary stuff. CEPRuntimeContext extends the RuntimeContext and
> overrides some methods that it does not want to expose with exception
> throwing logic. Some internal context classes simply expose the entire
> RuntimeContext with some additional methods. If we want to make things
> clean, I'd imagine all these variations of context can become some specific
> combination of a ReadOnlyRuntimeContext and some "write" methods. But this
> may require a closer look at all these cases to make sure the
> ReadOnlyRuntimeContext is generally suitable. I feel that it will take some
> time and could be a bigger discussion than the data generator source
> itself. So maybe we can just go with adding a method at the moment. And
> evolving the SourceReaderContext to use the ReadOnlyRuntimeContext in the
> future.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:31 PM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Becket,
> >
> > I agree with you. We could introduce a *ReadOnlyRuntimeContext* that
> would
> > act as a holder for the *RuntimeContext* data. This would also require
> > read-only wrappers for the exposed fields, such as *ExecutionConfig*.
> > Alternatively, we just add the *currentParallelism()* method for now and
> > see if anything else might actually be needed later on. What do you
> think?
> >
> > Best,
> > Alexander Fedulov
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > While it is true that the RuntimeContext gives access to all the stuff
> > the
> > > framework can provide, it seems a little overkilling for the
> > SourceReader.
> > > It is probably OK to expose all the read-only information in the
> > > RuntimeContext to the SourceReader, but we may want to hide the "write"
> > > methods, such as creating states, writing stuff to distributed cache,
> > etc,
> > > because these methods may not work well with the SourceReader design
> and
> > > cause confusion. For example, users may wonder why the snapshotState()
> > > method exists while they can use the state directly.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:37 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Becket,
> > > >
> > > > I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Here is also my POC branch [1].
> > > > DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on [2].
> > It
> > > is
> > > > based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
> > > > A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]
> > > >
> > > > Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
> > > > [3]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
> > > > [4]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Becket,
> > > > >
> > > > > Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
> > > > > Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
> > > > >  getRuntimeContext() methods?
> > > > > One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the
> > RuntimeContext
> > > > > directly if we expose it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
> > > > >> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hi Becket,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of
> > > > parallelism
> > > > >> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to
> consider
> > > it
> > > > >> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it
> should
> > > be
> > > > as
> > > > >> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous
> > SourceReaderContext
> > > > >> > implementation
> > > > >> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > public int currentParallelism() {
> > > > >> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
> > > > >> > }
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Is that what you had in mind?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <
> becket.qin@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a
> > SourceReaderContext.
> > > > >> This
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly
> the
> > > > >> Source
> > > > >> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the
> > > current
> > > > >> > subtask
> > > > >> > > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > >> > This
> > > > >> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for
> the
> > > > data
> > > > >> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit
> > > source,
> > > > >> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched
> on
> > > > >> scaling.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > >> > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing
> FlinkConnectorRateLimiter:
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method
> > > that
> > > > >> > takes a
> > > > >> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different
> > interface
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > the new Source
> > > > >> > > > API.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the
> rate-limiting
> > > use
> > > > >> > case:
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the
> > > > current
> > > > >> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is
> > not
> > > > >> > > supported,
> > > > >> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in
> the
> > > > >> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have
> > access.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I see two possibilities:
> > > > >> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the
> > > > DataGeneratorSource
> > > > >> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be
> > fully
> > > > >> > > configured
> > > > >> > > > by the user in the main method.
> > > > >> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a
> > Split.
> > > > The
> > > > >> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon
> > > splits
> > > > >> > > creation
> > > > >> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is
> > > > >> available.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather
> significantly
> > > more
> > > > >> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
> > > > >> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any
> > kind
> > > of
> > > > >> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original
> > > > configuration.
> > > > >> But
> > > > >> > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios
> > where
> > > > >> scaling
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for
> demo
> > > > >> purposes.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Best,
> > > > >> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
> > > > >> danderson@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> > > > >> > > implementations
> > > > >> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a
> good
> > > > >> idea, in
> > > > >> > > my
> > > > >> > > > > opinion.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Best,
> > > > >> > > > > David
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
> > > > >> renqschn@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some
> > > > thoughts.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an
> > > initializer
> > > > >> on it
> > > > >> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator
> > > > >> function
> > > > >> > are
> > > > >> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a
> > function
> > > > like
> > > > >> > > “open”
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
> > > > >> initializations
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > task initializing stage.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned,
> > there’s
> > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we
> > > could
> > > > >> reuse
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a
> > > common
> > > > >> > > feature
> > > > >> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another
> FLIP
> > > > and a
> > > > >> > lot
> > > > >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source
> > > first.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > Qingsheng
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > >> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the
> > points
> > > > you
> > > > >> > make
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of
> > > providing
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > universal
> > > > >> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > > > >> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
> > > > >> > *DataGeneratorSource*
> > > > >> > > > > > resides
> > > > >> > > > > > > in the
> > > > >> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same
> > name)
> > > > >> next to
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > > > >> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> > > > >> > > > *DataGenTableSource
> > > > >> > > > > > *has
> > > > >> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I
> > > > >> believe it
> > > > >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream
> > > users
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to
> eventually
> > > > >> converge
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it
> > sounds
> > > > >> like a
> > > > >> > > > good
> > > > >> > > > > > idea
> > > > >> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <
> > > jing@ververica.com
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread
> and
> > > the
> > > > >> > source
> > > > >> > > > > code
> > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source"
> > > > >> instead of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized
> > as
> > > > >> > > following:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on
> > > SourceFunction
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> > > > > stateful
> > > > >> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source
> > i.e.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
> > > > >> implementation
> > > > >> > > > based
> > > > >> > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed
> > based
> > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > Source
> > > > >> > > > > > >> API.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both
> > for
> > > > >> > > DataStream
> > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current
> DataGeneratorSource
> > > > >> should be
> > > > >> > > > > > replaced
> > > > >> > > > > > >> with the new one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be
> pluggable
> > to
> > > > >> > support
> > > > >> > > > > > various
> > > > >> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog
> stream,
> > > > >> > > controllable
> > > > >> > > > > > events
> > > > >> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> which turns out that
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort
> to
> > > > >> replace
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > current
> > > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a
> very
> > > > >> > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the
> > new
> > > > >> > > > > implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to
> > > > support
> > > > >> > > > stateless
> > > > >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot,
> It
> > > > might
> > > > >> > take
> > > > >> > > > > > months.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and
> > > growing
> > > > up
> > > > >> > > > > > iteratively.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless
> > > event
> > > > >> > > > generation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > > > >> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both
> > > DataGeneratorSource
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > used
> > > > >> > > > > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will
> be
> > > then
> > > > >> > > > > deprecated,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of
> > > StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > able
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > > > >> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based
> on
> > > > >> Source
> > > > >> > API
> > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is
> impossible
> > to
> > > > >> > support
> > > > >> > > > both
> > > > >> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one
> > GeneratorSource
> > > > >> > > > > > implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Jing
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > > > >> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not
> > causing
> > > > >> > > confusion
> > > > >> > > > (I
> > > > >> > > > > > know
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the
> > DataSupplierSource
> > > is
> > > > >> > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > better,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better
> > > idea.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Martijn
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander
> Fedulov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes
> > > though.
> > > > >> The
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data
> > > > described
> > > > >> by
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > Table
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the
> > RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
> > > > >> > concept
> > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in
> > > > >> contrast
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > supposed
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their
> > > custom
> > > > >> data.
> > > > >> > > > > Another
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to
> be
> > > > >> stateful
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > has
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is
> > purely
> > > > >> driven
> > > > >> > by
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> input
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain
> > > deterministic.
> > > > >> Are
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > sure
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We
> > could
> > > > >> think
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > using
> > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the
> > users
> > > > >> > > (something
> > > > >> > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > > > >> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
> > > > >> discussion.
> > > > >> > +1
> > > > >> > > > > > overall
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this
> > > > focussed
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we
> > have
> > > a
> > > > >> > Datagen
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> connector
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this
> > target
> > > > >> > > > interface. I
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> think
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one
> > generic
> > > > >> Datagen
> > > > >> > > > > > connector
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would
> > be
> > > a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table
> > > landscape
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > using
> > > > >> > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander
> > Fedulov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would
> be
> > > > >> useful
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> such
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> > > > >> > > > DataSourceGenerator
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration
> > > into
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > Table/SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource
> > > reusing
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
> > > > >> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is
> > > > really
> > > > >> > > helpful
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> during
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a
> > > > >> changelog
> > > > >> > > > stream
> > > > >> > > > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can
> > > practice
> > > > >> flink
> > > > >> > > sql
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
> > > > >> > ChangelogSocketExample
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> class[1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by
> > > 'nc'
> > > > >> > > command.
> > > > >> > > > > Can
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> we
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new
> > > > datagen
> > > > >> > > source?
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
> > > > >> > alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should
> > > actually
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > easier
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> than
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
> > > > >> CheckpointListener
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> interface
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be
> > possible
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > achieve
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> similar
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the
> generator
> > > > uses
> > > > >> an
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider
> > > adding
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > ability
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a
> > > > DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> allow
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with
> > customized
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> implementations
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander
> Fedulov
> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new
> Source
> > > API
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed
> > > > further
> > > > >> > away
> > > > >> > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling
> data
> > > and
> > > > >> > splits
> > > > >> > > > > [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> At
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is
> > > hardwired
> > > > >> into
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> internals
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be
> > > possible
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > provide a
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to
> > > > checkpointing
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Source
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the
> > > > SplitEnumerator
> > > > >> > > > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> (
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2].
> > In
> > > > >> theory,
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> should
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the
> > > > >> generator
> > > > >> > > > > function
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
> > > > >> serialize()
> > > > >> > > > method
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> gets
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you
> > > still
> > > > >> > won't
> > > > >> > > > get
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you
> > > > >> currently
> > > > >> > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> (this
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> info
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator
> > > implementation
> > > > >> > > itself,
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> new
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of
> > > verifying
> > > > >> > > > > checkpoints
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at
> least
> > I
> > > do
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > > see
> > > > >> > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different
> > way
> > > of
> > > > >> > > checking
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation
> > that
> > > > does
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > > > rely
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> on
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> > > > >> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator
> source
> > > > that
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > > control
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth
> > > like
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
> > > > >> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> boolean
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander
> Fedulov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238:
> > > > Introduce
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion
> about
> > > > >> > deprecating
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
> > > > >> > easy-to-use
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is
> needed
> > > so
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> current
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator
> > implementations
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > phased
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> out
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the
> > > internal
> > > > >> Flink
> > > > >> > > > > tests.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> This
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic
> > > > DataGeneratorSource
> > > > >> > > > capable
> > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> > > > >> > > user-supplied
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>.

Hi Alex,

Personally I prefer the latter option, i.e. just add the
currentParallelism() method. It is easy to add more stuff to the
SourceReaderContext in the future, and it is likely that most of the stuff
in the RuntimeContext is not required by the SourceReader implementations.
For the purpose of this FLIP, adding the method is probably good enough.

That said, I don't see a consistent pattern adopted in the project to
handle similar cases. The FunctionContext wraps the RuntimeContext and only
exposes necessary stuff. CEPRuntimeContext extends the RuntimeContext and
overrides some methods that it does not want to expose with exception
throwing logic. Some internal context classes simply expose the entire
RuntimeContext with some additional methods. If we want to make things
clean, I'd imagine all these variations of context can become some specific
combination of a ReadOnlyRuntimeContext and some "write" methods. But this
may require a closer look at all these cases to make sure the
ReadOnlyRuntimeContext is generally suitable. I feel that it will take some
time and could be a bigger discussion than the data generator source
itself. So maybe we can just go with adding a method at the moment. And
evolving the SourceReaderContext to use the ReadOnlyRuntimeContext in the
future.

Thanks,

Jiangjie (Becket) Qin

On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:31 PM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi Becket,
>
> I agree with you. We could introduce a *ReadOnlyRuntimeContext* that would
> act as a holder for the *RuntimeContext* data. This would also require
> read-only wrappers for the exposed fields, such as *ExecutionConfig*.
> Alternatively, we just add the *currentParallelism()* method for now and
> see if anything else might actually be needed later on. What do you think?
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > While it is true that the RuntimeContext gives access to all the stuff
> the
> > framework can provide, it seems a little overkilling for the
> SourceReader.
> > It is probably OK to expose all the read-only information in the
> > RuntimeContext to the SourceReader, but we may want to hide the "write"
> > methods, such as creating states, writing stuff to distributed cache,
> etc,
> > because these methods may not work well with the SourceReader design and
> > cause confusion. For example, users may wonder why the snapshotState()
> > method exists while they can use the state directly.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:37 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> alexander@ververica.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Becket,
> > >
> > > I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.
> > >
> > > Here is also my POC branch [1].
> > > DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on [2].
> It
> > is
> > > based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
> > > A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]
> > >
> > > Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.
> > >
> > > [1]
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
> > > [3]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
> > > [4]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Alexander Fedulov
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <
> > alexander@ververica.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Becket,
> > > >
> > > > Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
> > > > Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
> > > >  getRuntimeContext() methods?
> > > > One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the
> RuntimeContext
> > > > directly if we expose it.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
> > > >> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > alexander@ververica.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi Becket,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism
> to
> > > the
> > > >> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of
> > > parallelism
> > > >> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider
> > it
> > > >> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should
> > be
> > > as
> > > >> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous
> SourceReaderContext
> > > >> > implementation
> > > >> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
> > > >> >
> > > >> > public int currentParallelism() {
> > > >> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Is that what you had in mind?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi Alex,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a
> SourceReaderContext.
> > > >> This
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the
> > > >> Source
> > > >> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the
> > current
> > > >> > subtask
> > > >> > > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as
> > > well.
> > > >> > This
> > > >> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the
> > > data
> > > >> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit
> > source,
> > > >> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on
> > > >> scaling.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >> > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Hi all,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter:
> > it
> > > is
> > > >> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method
> > that
> > > >> > takes a
> > > >> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different
> interface
> > > for
> > > >> > > > the new Source
> > > >> > > > API.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting
> > use
> > > >> > case:
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the
> > > current
> > > >> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is
> not
> > > >> > > supported,
> > > >> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> > > >> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have
> access.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I see two possibilities:
> > > >> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the
> > > DataGeneratorSource
> > > >> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be
> fully
> > > >> > > configured
> > > >> > > > by the user in the main method.
> > > >> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a
> Split.
> > > The
> > > >> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon
> > splits
> > > >> > > creation
> > > >> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is
> > > >> available.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly
> > more
> > > >> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
> > > >> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any
> kind
> > of
> > > >> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original
> > > configuration.
> > > >> But
> > > >> > > I'm
> > > >> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios
> where
> > > >> scaling
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo
> > > >> purposes.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
> > > >> danderson@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> > > >> > > implementations
> > > >> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good
> > > >> idea, in
> > > >> > > my
> > > >> > > > > opinion.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > > David
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
> > > >> renqschn@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some
> > > thoughts.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an
> > initializer
> > > >> on it
> > > >> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator
> > > >> function
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a
> function
> > > like
> > > >> > > “open”
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
> > > >> initializations
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > task initializing stage.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned,
> there’s
> > a
> > > >> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we
> > could
> > > >> reuse
> > > >> > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a
> > common
> > > >> > > feature
> > > >> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP
> > > and a
> > > >> > lot
> > > >> > > of
> > > >> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source
> > first.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > Qingsheng
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the
> points
> > > you
> > > >> > make
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of
> > providing
> > > a
> > > >> > > > universal
> > > >> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > > >> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
> > > >> > *DataGeneratorSource*
> > > >> > > > > > resides
> > > >> > > > > > > in the
> > > >> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > > >> > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same
> name)
> > > >> next to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > > >> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> > > >> > > > *DataGenTableSource
> > > >> > > > > > *has
> > > >> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I
> > > >> believe it
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream
> > users
> > > >> of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually
> > > >> converge
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it
> sounds
> > > >> like a
> > > >> > > > good
> > > >> > > > > > idea
> > > >> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <
> > jing@ververica.com
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and
> > the
> > > >> > source
> > > >> > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source"
> > > >> instead of
> > > >> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized
> as
> > > >> > > following:
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on
> > SourceFunction
> > > >> is a
> > > >> > > > > stateful
> > > >> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > > >> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source
> i.e.
> > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
> > > >> implementation
> > > >> > > > based
> > > >> > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
> > > >> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed
> based
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > new
> > > >> > > > > > Source
> > > >> > > > > > >> API.
> > > >> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both
> for
> > > >> > > DataStream
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource
> > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > > > replaced
> > > >> > > > > > >> with the new one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable
> to
> > > >> > support
> > > >> > > > > > various
> > > >> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
> > > >> > > controllable
> > > >> > > > > > events
> > > >> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> which turns out that
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to
> > > >> replace
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > current
> > > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very
> > > >> > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the
> new
> > > >> > > > > implementation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to
> > > support
> > > >> > > > stateless
> > > >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It
> > > might
> > > >> > take
> > > >> > > > > > months.
> > > >> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and
> > growing
> > > up
> > > >> > > > > > iteratively.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless
> > event
> > > >> > > > generation
> > > >> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > > >> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > > >> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both
> > DataGeneratorSource
> > > >> will
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > used
> > > >> > > > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be
> > then
> > > >> > > > > deprecated,
> > > >> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > > >> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of
> > StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
> > > >> to
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > able
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > > >> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > > >> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > > >> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on
> > > >> Source
> > > >> > API
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible
> to
> > > >> > support
> > > >> > > > both
> > > >> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one
> GeneratorSource
> > > >> > > > > > implementation.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> Jing
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > > >> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not
> causing
> > > >> > > confusion
> > > >> > > > (I
> > > >> > > > > > know
> > > >> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the
> DataSupplierSource
> > is
> > > >> > > already
> > > >> > > > > > better,
> > > >> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better
> > idea.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Martijn
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes
> > though.
> > > >> The
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data
> > > described
> > > >> by
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > Table
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the
> RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
> > > >> > concept
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in
> > > >> contrast
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > supposed
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their
> > custom
> > > >> data.
> > > >> > > > > Another
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be
> > > >> stateful
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > has
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is
> purely
> > > >> driven
> > > >> > by
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>> input
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain
> > deterministic.
> > > >> Are
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We
> could
> > > >> think
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > using
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the
> users
> > > >> > > (something
> > > >> > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > > >> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
> > > >> discussion.
> > > >> > +1
> > > >> > > > > > overall
> > > >> > > > > > >>> for
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this
> > > focussed
> > > >> on
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we
> have
> > a
> > > >> > Datagen
> > > >> > > > > > >>> connector
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this
> target
> > > >> > > > interface. I
> > > >> > > > > > >>> think
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one
> generic
> > > >> Datagen
> > > >> > > > > > connector
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would
> be
> > a
> > > >> new
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table
> > landscape
> > > is
> > > >> > > using
> > > >> > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander
> Fedulov <
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be
> > > >> useful
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >>> such
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> > > >> > > > DataSourceGenerator
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration
> > into
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > Table/SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource
> > reusing
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
> > > >> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is
> > > really
> > > >> > > helpful
> > > >> > > > > > >>> during
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a
> > > >> changelog
> > > >> > > > stream
> > > >> > > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can
> > practice
> > > >> flink
> > > >> > > sql
> > > >> > > > > > >>> with
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
> > > >> > ChangelogSocketExample
> > > >> > > > > > >>> class[1]
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by
> > 'nc'
> > > >> > > command.
> > > >> > > > > Can
> > > >> > > > > > >>> we
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new
> > > datagen
> > > >> > > source?
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
> > > >> > alexander@ververica.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should
> > actually
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > easier
> > > >> > > > > > >>> than
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
> > > >> CheckpointListener
> > > >> > > > > > >>> interface
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be
> possible
> > > to
> > > >> > > achieve
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> similar
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator
> > > uses
> > > >> an
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider
> > adding
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > ability
> > > >> > > > > > >>> to
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a
> > > DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> allow
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with
> customized
> > > >> > > > > > >>> implementations
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov
> <
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source
> > API
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed
> > > further
> > > >> > away
> > > >> > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >>> the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data
> > and
> > > >> > splits
> > > >> > > > > [1].
> > > >> > > > > > >>> At
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is
> > hardwired
> > > >> into
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> internals
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be
> > possible
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > provide a
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to
> > > checkpointing
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Source
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the
> > > SplitEnumerator
> > > >> > > > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >>> (
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2].
> In
> > > >> theory,
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >>> should
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the
> > > >> generator
> > > >> > > > > function
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
> > > >> serialize()
> > > >> > > > method
> > > >> > > > > > >>> gets
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you
> > still
> > > >> > won't
> > > >> > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you
> > > >> currently
> > > >> > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >>> (this
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> info
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator
> > implementation
> > > >> > > itself,
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>> new
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of
> > verifying
> > > >> > > > > checkpoints
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least
> I
> > do
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > see
> > > >> > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different
> way
> > of
> > > >> > > checking
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation
> that
> > > does
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > rely
> > > >> > > > > > >>> on
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> > > >> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source
> > > that
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > > > control
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth
> > like
> > > >> this
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
> > > >> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > > >> > > > > > >>> boolean
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238:
> > > Introduce
> > > >> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about
> > > >> > deprecating
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
> > > >> > easy-to-use
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed
> > so
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >>> current
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator
> implementations
> > > >> could
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > phased
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> out
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the
> > internal
> > > >> Flink
> > > >> > > > > tests.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> This
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic
> > > DataGeneratorSource
> > > >> > > > capable
> > > >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> > > >> > > user-supplied
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

Hi Becket,

I agree with you. We could introduce a *ReadOnlyRuntimeContext* that would
act as a holder for the *RuntimeContext* data. This would also require
read-only wrappers for the exposed fields, such as *ExecutionConfig*.
Alternatively, we just add the *currentParallelism()* method for now and
see if anything else might actually be needed later on. What do you think?

Best,
Alexander Fedulov

On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> While it is true that the RuntimeContext gives access to all the stuff the
> framework can provide, it seems a little overkilling for the SourceReader.
> It is probably OK to expose all the read-only information in the
> RuntimeContext to the SourceReader, but we may want to hide the "write"
> methods, such as creating states, writing stuff to distributed cache, etc,
> because these methods may not work well with the SourceReader design and
> cause confusion. For example, users may wonder why the snapshotState()
> method exists while they can use the state directly.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:37 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Becket,
> >
> > I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.
> >
> > Here is also my POC branch [1].
> > DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on [2]. It
> is
> > based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
> > A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]
> >
> > Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.
> >
> > [1]  https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
> > [3]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
> > [4]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java
> >
> > Best,
> > Alexander Fedulov
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <
> alexander@ververica.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Becket,
> > >
> > > Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
> > > Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
> > >  getRuntimeContext() methods?
> > > One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the RuntimeContext
> > > directly if we expose it.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Alexander Fedulov
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Alex,
> > >>
> > >> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
> > >> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > alexander@ververica.com
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Becket,
> > >> >
> > >> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism to
> > the
> > >> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of
> > parallelism
> > >> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider
> it
> > >> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should
> be
> > as
> > >> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous SourceReaderContext
> > >> > implementation
> > >> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
> > >> >
> > >> > public int currentParallelism() {
> > >> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> > Is that what you had in mind?
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Alexander Fedulov
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Alex,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext.
> > >> This
> > >> > is
> > >> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the
> > >> Source
> > >> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the
> current
> > >> > subtask
> > >> > > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as
> > well.
> > >> > This
> > >> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the
> > data
> > >> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit
> source,
> > >> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on
> > >> scaling.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > >> > alexander@ververica.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hi all,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter:
> it
> > is
> > >> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method
> that
> > >> > takes a
> > >> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface
> > for
> > >> > > > the new Source
> > >> > > > API.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting
> use
> > >> > case:
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the
> > current
> > >> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not
> > >> > > supported,
> > >> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> > >> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I see two possibilities:
> > >> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the
> > DataGeneratorSource
> > >> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully
> > >> > > configured
> > >> > > > by the user in the main method.
> > >> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split.
> > The
> > >> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon
> splits
> > >> > > creation
> > >> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is
> > >> available.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly
> more
> > >> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
> > >> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind
> of
> > >> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original
> > configuration.
> > >> But
> > >> > > I'm
> > >> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where
> > >> scaling
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo
> > >> purposes.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Best,
> > >> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
> > >> danderson@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> > >> > > implementations
> > >> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good
> > >> idea, in
> > >> > > my
> > >> > > > > opinion.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Best,
> > >> > > > > David
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
> > >> renqschn@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some
> > thoughts.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an
> initializer
> > >> on it
> > >> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator
> > >> function
> > >> > are
> > >> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function
> > like
> > >> > > “open”
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
> > >> initializations
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > task initializing stage.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s
> a
> > >> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we
> could
> > >> reuse
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a
> common
> > >> > > feature
> > >> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP
> > and a
> > >> > lot
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source
> first.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > Qingsheng
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> > >> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points
> > you
> > >> > make
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of
> providing
> > a
> > >> > > > universal
> > >> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > >> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
> > >> > *DataGeneratorSource*
> > >> > > > > > resides
> > >> > > > > > > in the
> > >> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > >> > > > > think
> > >> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name)
> > >> next to
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > >> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> > >> > > > *DataGenTableSource
> > >> > > > > > *has
> > >> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I
> > >> believe it
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream
> users
> > >> of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually
> > >> converge
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds
> > >> like a
> > >> > > > good
> > >> > > > > > idea
> > >> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Best,
> > >> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <
> jing@ververica.com
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and
> the
> > >> > source
> > >> > > > > code
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source"
> > >> instead of
> > >> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as
> > >> > > following:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on
> SourceFunction
> > >> is a
> > >> > > > > stateful
> > >> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > >> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
> > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
> > >> implementation
> > >> > > > based
> > >> > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
> > >> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based
> on
> > >> the
> > >> > > new
> > >> > > > > > Source
> > >> > > > > > >> API.
> > >> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for
> > >> > > DataStream
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource
> > >> should be
> > >> > > > > > replaced
> > >> > > > > > >> with the new one.
> > >> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to
> > >> > support
> > >> > > > > > various
> > >> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
> > >> > > controllable
> > >> > > > > > events
> > >> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> which turns out that
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to
> > >> replace
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > current
> > >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very
> > >> > different
> > >> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > >> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
> > >> > > > > implementation.
> > >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to
> > support
> > >> > > > stateless
> > >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It
> > might
> > >> > take
> > >> > > > > > months.
> > >> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and
> growing
> > up
> > >> > > > > > iteratively.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless
> event
> > >> > > > generation
> > >> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > >> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > >> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both
> DataGeneratorSource
> > >> will
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > used
> > >> > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be
> then
> > >> > > > > deprecated,
> > >> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > >> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of
> StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
> > >> to
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > able
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > >> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > >> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > >> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on
> > >> Source
> > >> > API
> > >> > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to
> > >> > support
> > >> > > > both
> > >> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
> > >> > > > > > implementation.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> Jing
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > >> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing
> > >> > > confusion
> > >> > > > (I
> > >> > > > > > know
> > >> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource
> is
> > >> > > already
> > >> > > > > > better,
> > >> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better
> idea.
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Martijn
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > >> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes
> though.
> > >> The
> > >> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data
> > described
> > >> by
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > Table
> > >> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
> > >> > concept
> > >> > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in
> > >> contrast
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > supposed
> > >> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their
> custom
> > >> data.
> > >> > > > > Another
> > >> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be
> > >> stateful
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > has
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely
> > >> driven
> > >> > by
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>> input
> > >> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain
> deterministic.
> > >> Are
> > >> > you
> > >> > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could
> > >> think
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > using
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users
> > >> > > (something
> > >> > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > >> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > >> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
> > >> discussion.
> > >> > +1
> > >> > > > > > overall
> > >> > > > > > >>> for
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this
> > focussed
> > >> on
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have
> a
> > >> > Datagen
> > >> > > > > > >>> connector
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
> > >> > > > interface. I
> > >> > > > > > >>> think
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic
> > >> Datagen
> > >> > > > > > connector
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be
> a
> > >> new
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table
> landscape
> > is
> > >> > > using
> > >> > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be
> > >> useful
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >>> such
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> a
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> > >> > > > DataSourceGenerator
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration
> into
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > Table/SQL
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource
> reusing
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
> > >> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is
> > really
> > >> > > helpful
> > >> > > > > > >>> during
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a
> > >> changelog
> > >> > > > stream
> > >> > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can
> practice
> > >> flink
> > >> > > sql
> > >> > > > > > >>> with
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
> > >> > ChangelogSocketExample
> > >> > > > > > >>> class[1]
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by
> 'nc'
> > >> > > command.
> > >> > > > > Can
> > >> > > > > > >>> we
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new
> > datagen
> > >> > > source?
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
> > >> > alexander@ververica.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should
> actually
> > >> be
> > >> > > > easier
> > >> > > > > > >>> than
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> I
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
> > >> CheckpointListener
> > >> > > > > > >>> interface
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible
> > to
> > >> > > achieve
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> similar
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator
> > uses
> > >> an
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider
> adding
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > ability
> > >> > > > > > >>> to
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a
> > DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> allow
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
> > >> > > > > > >>> implementations
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source
> API
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed
> > further
> > >> > away
> > >> > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >>> the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data
> and
> > >> > splits
> > >> > > > > [1].
> > >> > > > > > >>> At
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is
> hardwired
> > >> into
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> internals
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be
> possible
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > provide a
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to
> > checkpointing
> > >> in
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> Source
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the
> > SplitEnumerator
> > >> > > > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >>> (
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In
> > >> theory,
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > > >>> should
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the
> > >> generator
> > >> > > > > function
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
> > >> serialize()
> > >> > > > method
> > >> > > > > > >>> gets
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you
> still
> > >> > won't
> > >> > > > get
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you
> > >> currently
> > >> > > use
> > >> > > > > > >>> (this
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> info
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator
> implementation
> > >> > > itself,
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>> new
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of
> verifying
> > >> > > > > checkpoints
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I
> do
> > >> not
> > >> > > see
> > >> > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way
> of
> > >> > > checking
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that
> > does
> > >> > not
> > >> > > > rely
> > >> > > > > > >>> on
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> this
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> > >> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source
> > that
> > >> can
> > >> > > > > control
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth
> like
> > >> this
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
> > >> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > >> > > > > > >>> boolean
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238:
> > Introduce
> > >> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about
> > >> > deprecating
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
> > >> > easy-to-use
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed
> so
> > >> that
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >>> current
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations
> > >> could
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > phased
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> out
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the
> internal
> > >> Flink
> > >> > > > > tests.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>> This
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic
> > DataGeneratorSource
> > >> > > > capable
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> > >> > > user-supplied
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>.

Hi Alex,

While it is true that the RuntimeContext gives access to all the stuff the
framework can provide, it seems a little overkilling for the SourceReader.
It is probably OK to expose all the read-only information in the
RuntimeContext to the SourceReader, but we may want to hide the "write"
methods, such as creating states, writing stuff to distributed cache, etc,
because these methods may not work well with the SourceReader design and
cause confusion. For example, users may wonder why the snapshotState()
method exists while they can use the state directly.

Thanks,

Jiangjie (Becket) Qin



On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:37 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi Becket,
>
> I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.
>
> Here is also my POC branch [1].
> DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on [2]. It is
> based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
> A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]
>
> Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.
>
> [1]  https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
> [3]
>
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
> [4]
>
> https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <alexander@ververica.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Becket,
> >
> > Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
> > Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
> >  getRuntimeContext() methods?
> > One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the RuntimeContext
> > directly if we expose it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alexander Fedulov
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
> >> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> alexander@ververica.com
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Becket,
> >> >
> >> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism to
> the
> >> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of
> parallelism
> >> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider it
> >> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should be
> as
> >> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous SourceReaderContext
> >> > implementation
> >> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
> >> >
> >> > public int currentParallelism() {
> >> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > Is that what you had in mind?
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Alexander Fedulov
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Alex,
> >> > >
> >> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext.
> >> This
> >> > is
> >> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the
> >> Source
> >> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the current
> >> > subtask
> >> > > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as
> well.
> >> > This
> >> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the
> data
> >> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
> >> > >
> >> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit source,
> >> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on
> >> scaling.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> >> > alexander@ververica.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter: it
> is
> >> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method that
> >> > takes a
> >> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface
> for
> >> > > > the new Source
> >> > > > API.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting use
> >> > case:
> >> > > in
> >> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the
> current
> >> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not
> >> > > supported,
> >> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> >> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I see two possibilities:
> >> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the
> DataGeneratorSource
> >> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully
> >> > > configured
> >> > > > by the user in the main method.
> >> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split.
> The
> >> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon splits
> >> > > creation
> >> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is
> >> available.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly more
> >> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
> >> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> >> > > in
> >> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind of
> >> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original
> configuration.
> >> But
> >> > > I'm
> >> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where
> >> scaling
> >> > > the
> >> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo
> >> purposes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Best,
> >> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
> >> danderson@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> >> > > implementations
> >> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good
> >> idea, in
> >> > > my
> >> > > > > opinion.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > David
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
> >> renqschn@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some
> thoughts.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an initializer
> >> on it
> >> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator
> >> function
> >> > are
> >> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function
> like
> >> > > “open”
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
> >> initializations
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > task initializing stage.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s a
> >> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we could
> >> reuse
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a common
> >> > > feature
> >> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP
> and a
> >> > lot
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source first.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > Qingsheng
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> >> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points
> you
> >> > make
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of providing
> a
> >> > > > universal
> >> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> >> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
> >> > *DataGeneratorSource*
> >> > > > > > resides
> >> > > > > > > in the
> >> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name)
> >> next to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> >> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> >> > > > *DataGenTableSource
> >> > > > > > *has
> >> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I
> >> believe it
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream users
> >> of
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually
> >> converge
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds
> >> like a
> >> > > > good
> >> > > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <jing@ververica.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and the
> >> > source
> >> > > > > code
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source"
> >> instead of
> >> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as
> >> > > following:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on SourceFunction
> >> is a
> >> > > > > stateful
> >> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> >> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
> >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
> >> implementation
> >> > > > based
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
> >> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based on
> >> the
> >> > > new
> >> > > > > > Source
> >> > > > > > >> API.
> >> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for
> >> > > DataStream
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource
> >> should be
> >> > > > > > replaced
> >> > > > > > >> with the new one.
> >> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to
> >> > support
> >> > > > > > various
> >> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
> >> > > controllable
> >> > > > > > events
> >> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> which turns out that
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to
> >> replace
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > current
> >> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very
> >> > different
> >> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> >> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
> >> > > > > implementation.
> >> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to
> support
> >> > > > stateless
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It
> might
> >> > take
> >> > > > > > months.
> >> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and growing
> up
> >> > > > > > iteratively.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless event
> >> > > > generation
> >> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> >> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> >> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both DataGeneratorSource
> >> will
> >> > be
> >> > > > > used
> >> > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be then
> >> > > > > deprecated,
> >> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> >> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
> >> to
> >> > be
> >> > > > able
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> >> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> >> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> >> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on
> >> Source
> >> > API
> >> > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to
> >> > support
> >> > > > both
> >> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
> >> > > > > > implementation.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> Jing
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> >> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing
> >> > > confusion
> >> > > > (I
> >> > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource is
> >> > > already
> >> > > > > > better,
> >> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better idea.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Martijn
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> >> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes though.
> >> The
> >> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data
> described
> >> by
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > Table
> >> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
> >> > concept
> >> > > > > which
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in
> >> contrast
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > supposed
> >> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their custom
> >> data.
> >> > > > > Another
> >> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be
> >> stateful
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > has
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely
> >> driven
> >> > by
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>> input
> >> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain deterministic.
> >> Are
> >> > you
> >> > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could
> >> think
> >> > of
> >> > > > > using
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users
> >> > > (something
> >> > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> >> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
> >> discussion.
> >> > +1
> >> > > > > > overall
> >> > > > > > >>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this
> focussed
> >> on
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
> >> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have a
> >> > Datagen
> >> > > > > > >>> connector
> >> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
> >> > > > interface. I
> >> > > > > > >>> think
> >> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic
> >> Datagen
> >> > > > > > connector
> >> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be a
> >> new
> >> > one
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table landscape
> is
> >> > > using
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be
> >> useful
> >> > to
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > > >>> such
> >> > > > > > >>>>> a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> >> > > > DataSourceGenerator
> >> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration into
> >> the
> >> > > > > Table/SQL
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource reusing
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
> >> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is
> really
> >> > > helpful
> >> > > > > > >>> during
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a
> >> changelog
> >> > > > stream
> >> > > > > by
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can practice
> >> flink
> >> > > sql
> >> > > > > > >>> with
> >> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
> >> > ChangelogSocketExample
> >> > > > > > >>> class[1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by 'nc'
> >> > > command.
> >> > > > > Can
> >> > > > > > >>> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new
> datagen
> >> > > source?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
> >> > alexander@ververica.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should actually
> >> be
> >> > > > easier
> >> > > > > > >>> than
> >> > > > > > >>>>> I
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
> >> CheckpointListener
> >> > > > > > >>> interface
> >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible
> to
> >> > > achieve
> >> > > > > > >>>>> similar
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator
> uses
> >> an
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider adding
> >> the
> >> > > > > ability
> >> > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a
> DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
> >> > that
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >>>>> allow
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
> >> > > > > > >>> implementations
> >> > > > > > >>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source API
> >> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed
> further
> >> > away
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > >>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data and
> >> > splits
> >> > > > > [1].
> >> > > > > > >>> At
> >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is hardwired
> >> into
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>> internals
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be possible
> >> to
> >> > > > > provide a
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to
> checkpointing
> >> in
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > new
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Source
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the
> SplitEnumerator
> >> > > > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >>> (
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In
> >> theory,
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > >>> should
> >> > > > > > >>>>> be
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the
> >> generator
> >> > > > > function
> >> > > > > > >>>>> and
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
> >> serialize()
> >> > > > method
> >> > > > > > >>> gets
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you still
> >> > won't
> >> > > > get
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you
> >> currently
> >> > > use
> >> > > > > > >>> (this
> >> > > > > > >>>>> info
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator implementation
> >> > > itself,
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>> new
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of verifying
> >> > > > > checkpoints
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I do
> >> not
> >> > > see
> >> > > > an
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way of
> >> > > checking
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that
> does
> >> > not
> >> > > > rely
> >> > > > > > >>> on
> >> > > > > > >>>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> >> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source
> that
> >> can
> >> > > > > control
> >> > > > > > >>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth like
> >> this
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
> >> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
> >> > > > > > >>> boolean
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238:
> Introduce
> >> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about
> >> > deprecating
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
> >> > easy-to-use
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed so
> >> that
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >>> current
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations
> >> could
> >> > be
> >> > > > > phased
> >> > > > > > >>>>> out
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the internal
> >> Flink
> >> > > > > tests.
> >> > > > > > >>>>> This
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic
> DataGeneratorSource
> >> > > > capable
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> >> > > user-supplied
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

Hi Becket,

I updated and extended FLIP-238 accordingly.

Here is also my POC branch [1].
DataGeneratorSourceV3 is the class that I currently converged on [2]. It is
based on the expanded SourceReaderContext.
A couple more relevant classes [3] [4]

Would appreciate it if you could take a quick look.

[1]  https://github.com/afedulov/flink/tree/FLINK-27919-generator-source
[2]
https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/DataGeneratorSourceV3.java
[3]
https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/MappingIteratorSourceReader.java
[4]
https://github.com/afedulov/flink/blob/FLINK-27919-generator-source/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/lib/util/RateLimitedSourceReader.java

Best,
Alexander Fedulov

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi Becket,
>
> Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
> Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
>  getRuntimeContext() methods?
> One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the RuntimeContext
> directly if we expose it.
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
>> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <alexander@ververica.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Becket,
>> >
>> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism to the
>> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of parallelism
>> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider it
>> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should be as
>> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous SourceReaderContext
>> > implementation
>> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
>> >
>> > public int currentParallelism() {
>> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
>> > }
>> >
>> > Is that what you had in mind?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Alexander Fedulov
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Alex,
>> > >
>> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext.
>> This
>> > is
>> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the
>> Source
>> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
>> > >
>> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the current
>> > subtask
>> > > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as well.
>> > This
>> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the data
>> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
>> > >
>> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit source,
>> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on
>> scaling.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > alexander@ververica.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > >
>> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter: it is
>> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method that
>> > takes a
>> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface for
>> > > > the new Source
>> > > > API.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting use
>> > case:
>> > > in
>> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the current
>> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not
>> > > supported,
>> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
>> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
>> > > >
>> > > > I see two possibilities:
>> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the DataGeneratorSource
>> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully
>> > > configured
>> > > > by the user in the main method.
>> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split. The
>> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon splits
>> > > creation
>> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is
>> available.
>> > > >
>> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly more
>> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
>> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
>> > > in
>> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind of
>> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original configuration.
>> But
>> > > I'm
>> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where
>> scaling
>> > > the
>> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo
>> purposes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <
>> danderson@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
>> > > implementations
>> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good
>> idea, in
>> > > my
>> > > > > opinion.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best,
>> > > > > David
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <
>> renqschn@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some thoughts.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an initializer
>> on it
>> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator
>> function
>> > are
>> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function like
>> > > “open”
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some
>> initializations
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > task initializing stage.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s a
>> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we could
>> reuse
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a common
>> > > feature
>> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP and a
>> > lot
>> > > of
>> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source first.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > Qingsheng
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points you
>> > make
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of providing a
>> > > > universal
>> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
>> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
>> > *DataGeneratorSource*
>> > > > > > resides
>> > > > > > > in the
>> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
>> > > > > think
>> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name)
>> next to
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
>> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
>> > > > *DataGenTableSource
>> > > > > > *has
>> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I
>> believe it
>> > > is
>> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream users
>> of
>> > the
>> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually
>> converge
>> > > on
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds
>> like a
>> > > > good
>> > > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <ji...@ververica.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Hi,
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and the
>> > source
>> > > > > code
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source"
>> instead of
>> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as
>> > > following:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on SourceFunction
>> is a
>> > > > > stateful
>> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
>> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
>> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
>> implementation
>> > > > based
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
>> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based on
>> the
>> > > new
>> > > > > > Source
>> > > > > > >> API.
>> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for
>> > > DataStream
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource
>> should be
>> > > > > > replaced
>> > > > > > >> with the new one.
>> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to
>> > support
>> > > > > > various
>> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
>> > > controllable
>> > > > > > events
>> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> which turns out that
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to
>> replace
>> > the
>> > > > > > current
>> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very
>> > different
>> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
>> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
>> > > > > implementation.
>> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to support
>> > > > stateless
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It might
>> > take
>> > > > > > months.
>> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and growing up
>> > > > > > iteratively.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless event
>> > > > generation
>> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
>> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
>> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both DataGeneratorSource
>> will
>> > be
>> > > > > used
>> > > > > > by
>> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be then
>> > > > > deprecated,
>> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
>> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer
>> to
>> > be
>> > > > able
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
>> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
>> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
>> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on
>> Source
>> > API
>> > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to
>> > support
>> > > > both
>> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
>> > > > > > implementation.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> Jing
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
>> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing
>> > > confusion
>> > > > (I
>> > > > > > know
>> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource is
>> > > already
>> > > > > > better,
>> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better idea.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Martijn
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes though.
>> The
>> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data described
>> by
>> > > the
>> > > > > > Table
>> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
>> > concept
>> > > > > which
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in
>> contrast
>> > is
>> > > > > > supposed
>> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their custom
>> data.
>> > > > > Another
>> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be
>> stateful
>> > > and
>> > > > > has
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely
>> driven
>> > by
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>> input
>> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain deterministic.
>> Are
>> > you
>> > > > > sure
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could
>> think
>> > of
>> > > > > using
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users
>> > > (something
>> > > > > like
>> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Best,
>> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
>> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the
>> discussion.
>> > +1
>> > > > > > overall
>> > > > > > >>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this focussed
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
>> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have a
>> > Datagen
>> > > > > > >>> connector
>> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
>> > > > interface. I
>> > > > > > >>> think
>> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic
>> Datagen
>> > > > > > connector
>> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be a
>> new
>> > one
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table landscape is
>> > > using
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be
>> useful
>> > to
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > >>> such
>> > > > > > >>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
>> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
>> > > > DataSourceGenerator
>> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
>> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
>> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration into
>> the
>> > > > > Table/SQL
>> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
>> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource reusing
>> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
>> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is really
>> > > helpful
>> > > > > > >>> during
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a
>> changelog
>> > > > stream
>> > > > > by
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can practice
>> flink
>> > > sql
>> > > > > > >>> with
>> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
>> > ChangelogSocketExample
>> > > > > > >>> class[1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by 'nc'
>> > > command.
>> > > > > Can
>> > > > > > >>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new datagen
>> > > source?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
>> > alexander@ververica.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should actually
>> be
>> > > > easier
>> > > > > > >>> than
>> > > > > > >>>>> I
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
>> CheckpointListener
>> > > > > > >>> interface
>> > > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible to
>> > > achieve
>> > > > > > >>>>> similar
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator uses
>> an
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider adding
>> the
>> > > > > ability
>> > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
>> > that
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > >>>>> allow
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
>> > > > > > >>> implementations
>> > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source API
>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed further
>> > away
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data and
>> > splits
>> > > > > [1].
>> > > > > > >>> At
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is hardwired
>> into
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>> internals
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be possible
>> to
>> > > > > provide a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to checkpointing
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > > >>>>> Source
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the SplitEnumerator
>> > > > > serializer
>> > > > > > >>> (
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In
>> theory,
>> > > it
>> > > > > > >>> should
>> > > > > > >>>>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the
>> generator
>> > > > > function
>> > > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the
>> serialize()
>> > > > method
>> > > > > > >>> gets
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you still
>> > won't
>> > > > get
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you
>> currently
>> > > use
>> > > > > > >>> (this
>> > > > > > >>>>> info
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator implementation
>> > > itself,
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>> new
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of verifying
>> > > > > checkpoints
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I do
>> not
>> > > see
>> > > > an
>> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way of
>> > > checking
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that does
>> > not
>> > > > rely
>> > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > >>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
>> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source that
>> can
>> > > > > control
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth like
>> this
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
>> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
>> > > > > > >>> boolean
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238: Introduce
>> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about
>> > deprecating
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
>> > easy-to-use
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed so
>> that
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >>> current
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations
>> could
>> > be
>> > > > > phased
>> > > > > > >>>>> out
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the internal
>> Flink
>> > > > > tests.
>> > > > > > >>>>> This
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic DataGeneratorSource
>> > > > capable
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
>> > > user-supplied
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

Hi Becket,

Exposing the RuntimeContext is potentially even more useful.
Do you think it is worth having both currentParallelism() and
 getRuntimeContext() methods?
One can always call getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() on the RuntimeContext
directly if we expose it.

Best,
Alexander Fedulov


On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
> getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Becket,
> >
> > thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism to the
> > SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of parallelism
> > causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider it
> > "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should be as
> > simple as adding the following to the anonymous SourceReaderContext
> > implementation
> > in SourceOperator#initReader():
> >
> > public int currentParallelism() {
> >    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
> > }
> >
> > Is that what you had in mind?
> >
> > Best,
> > Alexander Fedulov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext. This
> > is
> > > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the Source
> > > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
> > >
> > > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the current
> > subtask
> > > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as well.
> > This
> > > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the data
> > > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
> > >
> > > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit source,
> > > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on
> scaling.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter: it is
> > > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method that
> > takes a
> > > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface for
> > > > the new Source
> > > > API.
> > > >
> > > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting use
> > case:
> > > in
> > > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the current
> > > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not
> > > supported,
> > > > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> > > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
> > > >
> > > > I see two possibilities:
> > > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the DataGeneratorSource
> > > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully
> > > configured
> > > > by the user in the main method.
> > > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split. The
> > > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon splits
> > > creation
> > > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is
> available.
> > > >
> > > > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly more
> > > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
> > NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> > > in
> > > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind of
> > > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original configuration.
> But
> > > I'm
> > > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where
> scaling
> > > the
> > > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo
> purposes.
> > > >
> > > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <danderson@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> > > implementations
> > > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good idea,
> in
> > > my
> > > > > opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <renqschn@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alexander,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some thoughts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an initializer on
> it
> > > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator function
> > are
> > > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function like
> > > “open”
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the interface could let the function to make some initializations
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > task initializing stage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s a
> > > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we could
> reuse
> > > > this
> > > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a common
> > > feature
> > > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP and a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Qingsheng
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jing,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points you
> > make
> > > > and
> > > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of providing a
> > > > universal
> > > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
> > *DataGeneratorSource*
> > > > > > resides
> > > > > > > in the
> > *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name) next
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> > > > *DataGenTableSource
> > > > > > *has
> > > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I believe
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream users of
> > the
> > > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually
> converge
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds
> like a
> > > > good
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <ji...@ververica.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and the
> > source
> > > > > code
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source" instead
> of
> > > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as
> > > following:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on SourceFunction is
> a
> > > > > stateful
> > > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current
> implementation
> > > > based
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> SourceFunction.
> > > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based on
> the
> > > new
> > > > > > Source
> > > > > > >> API.
> > > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for
> > > DataStream
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource should
> be
> > > > > > replaced
> > > > > > >> with the new one.
> > > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to
> > support
> > > > > > various
> > > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
> > > controllable
> > > > > > events
> > > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> which turns out that
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to replace
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very
> > different
> > > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
> > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to support
> > > > stateless
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It might
> > take
> > > > > > months.
> > > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and growing up
> > > > > > iteratively.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless event
> > > > generation
> > > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both DataGeneratorSource
> will
> > be
> > > > > used
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be then
> > > > > deprecated,
> > > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer to
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on Source
> > API
> > > > > which
> > > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to
> > support
> > > > both
> > > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
> > > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > >> Jing
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing
> > > confusion
> > > > (I
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource is
> > > already
> > > > > > better,
> > > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better idea.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Martijn
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes though.
> The
> > > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data described
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > Table
> > > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
> > concept
> > > > > which
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in contrast
> > is
> > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their custom
> data.
> > > > > Another
> > > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be
> stateful
> > > and
> > > > > has
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely
> driven
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> input
> > > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain deterministic. Are
> > you
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could think
> > of
> > > > > using
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users
> > > (something
> > > > > like
> > > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the discussion.
> > +1
> > > > > > overall
> > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this focussed
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> DataStream
> > > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have a
> > Datagen
> > > > > > >>> connector
> > > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
> > > > interface. I
> > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic
> Datagen
> > > > > > connector
> > > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be a new
> > one
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table landscape is
> > > using
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Martijn
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be useful
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > >>> such
> > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> > > > DataSourceGenerator
> > > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration into the
> > > > > Table/SQL
> > > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource reusing
> > > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
> > yxx_cmhd@163.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is really
> > > helpful
> > > > > > >>> during
> > > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a changelog
> > > > stream
> > > > > by
> > > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can practice
> flink
> > > sql
> > > > > > >>> with
> > > > > > >>>>> cdc
> > > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
> > ChangelogSocketExample
> > > > > > >>> class[1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by 'nc'
> > > command.
> > > > > Can
> > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new datagen
> > > source?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
> > alexander@ververica.com
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should actually be
> > > > easier
> > > > > > >>> than
> > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends
> CheckpointListener
> > > > > > >>> interface
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible to
> > > achieve
> > > > > > >>>>> similar
> > > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator uses
> an
> > > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider adding
> the
> > > > > ability
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
> > that
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >>>>> allow
> > > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
> > > > > > >>> implementations
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source API
> the
> > > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed further
> > away
> > > > from
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data and
> > splits
> > > > > [1].
> > > > > > >>> At
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is hardwired
> into
> > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> internals
> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be possible to
> > > > > provide a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to checkpointing
> in
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > >>>>> Source
> > > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the SplitEnumerator
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > >>> (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In
> theory,
> > > it
> > > > > > >>> should
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the
> generator
> > > > > function
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the serialize()
> > > > method
> > > > > > >>> gets
> > > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you still
> > won't
> > > > get
> > > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you
> currently
> > > use
> > > > > > >>> (this
> > > > > > >>>>> info
> > > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator implementation
> > > itself,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> new
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Source
> > > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of verifying
> > > > > checkpoints
> > > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I do
> not
> > > see
> > > > an
> > > > > > >>>>>> immediate
> > > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way of
> > > checking
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that does
> > not
> > > > rely
> > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> > > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source that
> can
> > > > > control
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth like
> this
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
> > elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > > > > > >>> boolean
> > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238: Introduce
> > > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Data
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about
> > deprecating
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
> > easy-to-use
> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed so
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations could
> > be
> > > > > phased
> > > > > > >>>>> out
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the internal
> Flink
> > > > > tests.
> > > > > > >>>>> This
> > > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic DataGeneratorSource
> > > > capable
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> > > user-supplied
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > > >>>
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>.

Hi Alex,

Yes, that is what I had in mind. We need to add the method
getRuntimeContext() to the SourceReaderContext interface as well.

Thanks,

Jiangjie (Becket) Qin

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
wrote:

> Hi Becket,
>
> thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism to the
> SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of parallelism
> causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider it
> "fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should be as
> simple as adding the following to the anonymous SourceReaderContext
> implementation
> in SourceOperator#initReader():
>
> public int currentParallelism() {
>    return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
> }
>
> Is that what you had in mind?
>
> Best,
> Alexander Fedulov
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext. This
> is
> > passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the Source
> > should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
> >
> > In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the current
> subtask
> > is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as well.
> This
> > would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the data
> > generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
> >
> > Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit source,
> > personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on scaling.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> alexander@ververica.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter: it is
> > > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method that
> takes a
> > > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface for
> > > the new Source
> > > API.
> > >
> > > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting use
> case:
> > in
> > > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the current
> > > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not
> > supported,
> > > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> > > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
> > >
> > > I see two possibilities:
> > > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the DataGeneratorSource
> > > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully
> > configured
> > > by the user in the main method.
> > > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split. The
> > > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon splits
> > creation
> > > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is available.
> > >
> > > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly more
> > > complex since we cannot simply wrap
> NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> > in
> > > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind of
> > > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original configuration. But
> > I'm
> > > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where scaling
> > the
> > > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo purposes.
> > >
> > > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Alexander Fedulov
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <da...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> > > >
> > > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> > implementations
> > > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good idea, in
> > my
> > > > opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <re...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Alexander,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an initializer on it
> > > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator function
> are
> > > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function like
> > “open”
> > > > in
> > > > > the interface could let the function to make some initializations
> in
> > > the
> > > > > task initializing stage.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s a
> > > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we could reuse
> > > this
> > > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a common
> > feature
> > > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP and a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source first.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Qingsheng
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> > > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jing,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points you
> make
> > > and
> > > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of providing a
> > > universal
> > > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based
> *DataGeneratorSource*
> > > > > resides
> > > > > > in the
> *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name) next to
> > the
> > > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> > > *DataGenTableSource
> > > > > *has
> > > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I believe it
> > is
> > > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream users of
> the
> > > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually converge
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds like a
> > > good
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <ji...@ververica.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and the
> source
> > > > code
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source" instead of
> > > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as
> > following:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on SourceFunction is a
> > > > stateful
> > > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
> > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current implementation
> > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> SourceFunction.
> > > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based on the
> > new
> > > > > Source
> > > > > >> API.
> > > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for
> > DataStream
> > > > and
> > > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource should be
> > > > > replaced
> > > > > >> with the new one.
> > > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to
> support
> > > > > various
> > > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
> > controllable
> > > > > events
> > > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> which turns out that
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to replace
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very
> different
> > > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
> > > > implementation.
> > > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to support
> > > stateless
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It might
> take
> > > > > months.
> > > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and growing up
> > > > > iteratively.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless event
> > > generation
> > > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > > > > >> The will be a period of time that both DataGeneratorSource will
> be
> > > > used
> > > > > by
> > > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be then
> > > > deprecated,
> > > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer to
> be
> > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on Source
> API
> > > > which
> > > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to
> support
> > > both
> > > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
> > > > > implementation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > >> Jing
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing
> > confusion
> > > (I
> > > > > know
> > > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource is
> > already
> > > > > better,
> > > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better idea.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Martijn
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes though. The
> > > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data described by
> > the
> > > > > Table
> > > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator
> concept
> > > > which
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in contrast
> is
> > > > > supposed
> > > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their custom data.
> > > > Another
> > > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be stateful
> > and
> > > > has
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely driven
> by
> > > the
> > > > > >>> input
> > > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain deterministic. Are
> you
> > > > sure
> > > > > it
> > > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could think
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > a
> > > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users
> > (something
> > > > like
> > > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the discussion.
> +1
> > > > > overall
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this focussed on
> > the
> > > > > >>>>> DataStream
> > > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have a
> Datagen
> > > > > >>> connector
> > > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
> > > interface. I
> > > > > >>> think
> > > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic Datagen
> > > > > connector
> > > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be a new
> one
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table landscape is
> > using
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Martijn
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be useful
> to
> > > have
> > > > > >>> such
> > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> > > DataSourceGenerator
> > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration into the
> > > > Table/SQL
> > > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource reusing
> > > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <
> yxx_cmhd@163.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is really
> > helpful
> > > > > >>> during
> > > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a changelog
> > > stream
> > > > by
> > > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can practice flink
> > sql
> > > > > >>> with
> > > > > >>>>> cdc
> > > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a
> ChangelogSocketExample
> > > > > >>> class[1]
> > > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by 'nc'
> > command.
> > > > Can
> > > > > >>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new datagen
> > source?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<
> alexander@ververica.com
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should actually be
> > > easier
> > > > > >>> than
> > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends CheckpointListener
> > > > > >>> interface
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible to
> > achieve
> > > > > >>>>> similar
> > > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator uses an
> > > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider adding the
> > > > ability
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory
> that
> > > > would
> > > > > >>>>> allow
> > > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
> > > > > >>> implementations
> > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source API the
> > > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed further
> away
> > > from
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data and
> splits
> > > > [1].
> > > > > >>> At
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is hardwired into
> > the
> > > > > >>>>> internals
> > > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be possible to
> > > > provide a
> > > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to checkpointing in
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > >>>>> Source
> > > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the SplitEnumerator
> > > > serializer
> > > > > >>> (
> > > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In theory,
> > it
> > > > > >>> should
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the generator
> > > > function
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the serialize()
> > > method
> > > > > >>> gets
> > > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you still
> won't
> > > get
> > > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you currently
> > use
> > > > > >>> (this
> > > > > >>>>> info
> > > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator implementation
> > itself,
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>> Source
> > > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of verifying
> > > > checkpoints
> > > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I do not
> > see
> > > an
> > > > > >>>>>> immediate
> > > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way of
> > checking
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that does
> not
> > > rely
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> > stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source that can
> > > > control
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth like this
> in
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>>
> elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > > > > >>> boolean
> > > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238: Introduce
> > > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Data
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about
> deprecating
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an
> easy-to-use
> > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed so that
> > the
> > > > > >>> current
> > > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations could
> be
> > > > phased
> > > > > >>>>> out
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the internal Flink
> > > > tests.
> > > > > >>>>> This
> > > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic DataGeneratorSource
> > > capable
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> > user-supplied
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > >>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-238: Introduce FLIP-27-based Data Generator Source

Posted by Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>.

Hi Becket,

thanks for your input. I like the idea of adding the parallelism to the
SourceReaderContext. My understanding is that any change of parallelism
causes recreation of all readers, so it should be safe to consider it
"fixed" after the readers' initialization. In that case, it should be as
simple as adding the following to the anonymous SourceReaderContext
implementation
in SourceOperator#initReader():

public int currentParallelism() {
   return getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks();
}

Is that what you had in mind?

Best,
Alexander Fedulov




On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:30 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> In FLIP-27 source, the SourceReader can get a SourceReaderContext. This is
> passed in by the TM in Source#createReader(). And supposedly the Source
> should pass this to the SourceReader if needed.
>
> In the SourceReaderContext, currently only the index of the current subtask
> is available, but we can probably add the current parallelism as well. This
> would be a change that affects all the Sources, not only for the data
> generator source. Perhaps we can have a simple separate FLIP.
>
> Regarding the semantic of rate limiting, for the rate limit source,
> personally I feel intuitive to keep the global rate untouched on scaling.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:00 AM Alexander Fedulov <al...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > getting back to the idea of reusing FlinkConnectorRateLimiter: it is
> > designed for the SourceFunction API and has an open() method that takes a
> > RuntimeContext. Therefore, we need to add a different interface for
> > the new Source
> > API.
> >
> > This is where I see a certain limitation for the rate-limiting use case:
> in
> > the old API the individual readers were able to retrieve the current
> > parallelism from the RuntimeContext. In the new API, this is not
> supported,
> > the information about the parallelism is only available in the
> > SplitEnumeratorContext to which the readers do not have access.
> >
> > I see two possibilities:
> > 1. Add an optional RateLimiter parameter to the DataGeneratorSource
> > constructor. The RateLimiter is then "fixed" and has to be fully
> configured
> > by the user in the main method.
> > 2. Piggy-back on Splits: add parallelism as a field of a Split. The
> > initialization of this field would happen dynamically upon splits
> creation
> > in the createEnumerator() method where currentParallelism is available.
> >
> > The second approach makes implementation rather significantly more
> > complex since we cannot simply wrap NumberSequenceSource.SplitSerializer
> in
> > that case. The advantage of this approach is that with any kind of
> > autoscaling, the source rate will match the original configuration. But
> I'm
> > not sure how useful this is. I can even imagine scenarios where scaling
> the
> > input rate together with parallelism would be better for demo purposes.
> >
> > Would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alexander Fedulov
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Anderson <da...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm very happy with this. +1
> > >
> > > A lot of SourceFunction implementations used in demos/POC
> implementations
> > > include a call to sleep(), so adding rate limiting is a good idea, in
> my
> > > opinion.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > David
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:10 AM Qingsheng Ren <re...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alexander,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP! I’d like to share some thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > 1. About the “generatorFunction” I’m expecting an initializer on it
> > > > because it’s hard to require all fields in the generator function are
> > > > serializable in user’s implementation. Providing a function like
> “open”
> > > in
> > > > the interface could let the function to make some initializations in
> > the
> > > > task initializing stage.
> > > >
> > > > 2. As of the throttling functinality you mentioned, there’s a
> > > > FlinkConnectorRateLimiter under flink-core and maybe we could reuse
> > this
> > > > interface. Actually I prefer to make rate limiting as a common
> feature
> > > > provided in the Source API, but this requires another FLIP and a lot
> of
> > > > discussions so I’m OK to have it in the DataGen source first.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Qingsheng
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 01:47, Alexander Fedulov <
> > alexander@ververica.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jing,
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for your thorough analysis. I agree with the points you make
> > and
> > > > > also with the idea to approach the larger task of providing a
> > universal
> > > > > (DataStream + SQL) data generator base iteratively.
> > > > > Regarding the name, the SourceFunction-based *DataGeneratorSource*
> > > > resides
> > > > > in the *org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.datagen*. I
> > > think
> > > > > it is OK to simply place the new one (with the same name) next to
> the
> > > > > *NumberSequenceSource* into
> > > *org.apache.flink.api.connector.source.lib*.
> > > > >
> > > > > One more thing I wanted to discuss:  I noticed that
> > *DataGenTableSource
> > > > *has
> > > > > built-in throttling functionality (*rowsPerSecond*). I believe it
> is
> > > > > something that could be also useful for the DataStream users of the
> > > > > stateless data generator and since we want to eventually converge
> on
> > > the
> > > > > same implementation for DataStream and Table/SQL it sounds like a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > to add it to the FLIP. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:17 PM Jing Ge <ji...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> After reading all discussions posted in this thread and the source
> > > code
> > > > of
> > > > >> DataGeneratorSource which unfortunately used "Source" instead of
> > > > >> "SourceFunction" in its name, issues could summarized as
> following:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1. The current DataGeneratorSource based on SourceFunction is a
> > > stateful
> > > > >> source connector and built for Table/SQL.
> > > > >> 2. The right name for the new data generator source i.e.
> > > > >> DataGeneratorSource has been used for the current implementation
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > >> SourceFunction.
> > > > >> 3. A new data generator source should be developed based on the
> new
> > > > Source
> > > > >> API.
> > > > >> 4. The new data generator source should be used both for
> DataStream
> > > and
> > > > >> Table/SQL, which means the current DataGeneratorSource should be
> > > > replaced
> > > > >> with the new one.
> > > > >> 5. The core event generation logic should be pluggable to support
> > > > various
> > > > >> (test) scenarios, e.g. rondom stream, changlog stream,
> controllable
> > > > events
> > > > >> per checkpoint, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> which turns out that
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To solve 1+3+4 -> we will have to make a big effort to replace the
> > > > current
> > > > >> DataGeneratorSource since the new Source API has a very different
> > > > >> concept, especially for the stateful part.
> > > > >> To solve 2+3 -> we have to find another name for the new
> > > implementation.
> > > > >> To solve 1+3+4+5 -> It gets even more complicated to support
> > stateless
> > > > and
> > > > >> stateful scenarios simultaneously with one solution.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If we want to solve all of these issues in one shot, It might take
> > > > months.
> > > > >> Therefore, I would suggest starting from small and growing up
> > > > iteratively.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The proposal for the kickoff is to focus on stateless event
> > generation
> > > > >> with e.g. rondom stream and use the name
> > > "StatelessDataGeneratoSource".
> > > > >> The will be a period of time that both DataGeneratorSource will be
> > > used
> > > > by
> > > > >> the developer. The current DataGeneratorSource will be then
> > > deprecated,
> > > > >> once we can(iteratively):
> > > > >> 1. either enlarge the scope of StatelessDataGeneratoSourcer to be
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > >> cover stateful scenarios and renaming it to
> > > > "DataGeneratorSourceV2"(follow
> > > > >> the naming convention of SinkV2) or
> > > > >> 2. develop a new "SatefullDataGeneratorSource" based on Source API
> > > which
> > > > >> can handle the stateful scenarios, if it is impossible to support
> > both
> > > > >> stateless and stateful scenarios with one GeneratorSource
> > > > implementation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >> Jing
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:48 PM Martijn Visser <
> > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hey Alex,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yes, I think we need to make sure that we're not causing
> confusion
> > (I
> > > > know
> > > > >>> I already was confused). I think the DataSupplierSource is
> already
> > > > better,
> > > > >>> but perhaps there are others who have an even better idea.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Martijn
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Op do 9 jun. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > >>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Martijn,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It seems that they serve a bit different purposes though. The
> > > > >>>> DataGenTableSource is for generating random data described by
> the
> > > > Table
> > > > >>>> DDL and is tied into the RowDataGenerator/DataGenerator concept
> > > which
> > > > is
> > > > >>>> implemented as an Iterator<T>.  The proposed API in contrast is
> > > > supposed
> > > > >>>> to provide users with an easy way to supply their custom data.
> > > Another
> > > > >>>> difference is that a DataGenerator is supposed to be stateful
> and
> > > has
> > > > to
> > > > >>>> snapshot its state, whereas the proposed API is purely driven by
> > the
> > > > >>> input
> > > > >>>> index IDs and can be stateless yet remain deterministic. Are you
> > > sure
> > > > it
> > > > >>>> is a good idea to mix them into the same API? We could think of
> > > using
> > > > a
> > > > >>>> different name to make it less confusing for the users
> (something
> > > like
> > > > >>>> DataSupplierSource).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > >>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM Martijn Visser <
> > > > martijnvisser@apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP and opening up the discussion. +1
> > > > overall
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>> getting this in place.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> One question: you've already mentioned that this focussed on
> the
> > > > >>>>> DataStream
> > > > >>>>> API. I think it would be a bit confusing that we have a Datagen
> > > > >>> connector
> > > > >>>>> (on the Table side) that wouldn't leverage this target
> > interface. I
> > > > >>> think
> > > > >>>>> it would be good if we could already have one generic Datagen
> > > > connector
> > > > >>>>> which works for both DataStream API (so that would be a new one
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> Flink repo) and that the Datagen in the Table landscape is
> using
> > > this
> > > > >>>>> target interface too. What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Martijn
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 14:21 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > >>>>> alexander@ververica.com>:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Xianxun,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I do believe it would be useful to
> > have
> > > > >>> such
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>> CDC data generator but I see the
> > > > >>>>>> efforts to provide one a bit orthogonal to the
> > DataSourceGenerator
> > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > >>>>>> in the FLIP. FLIP-238 focuses
> > > > >>>>>> on the DataStream API and I could see integration into the
> > > Table/SQL
> > > > >>>>>> ecosystem as the next step that I would
> > > > >>>>>> prefer to keep separate (see KafkaDynamicSource reusing
> > > > >>>>>> KafkaSource<RowData>
> > > > >>>>>> under the hood [1]).
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/3adca15859b36c61116fc56fabc24e9647f0ec5f/flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/table/KafkaDynamicSource.java#L223
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:01 AM Xianxun Ye <yx...@163.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hey Alexander,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Making datagen source connector easier to use is really
> helpful
> > > > >>> during
> > > > >>>>>>> doing some PoC/Demo.
> > > > >>>>>>> And I thought about is it possible to produce a changelog
> > stream
> > > by
> > > > >>>>>>> datagen source, so a new flink developer can practice flink
> sql
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>>>> cdc
> > > > >>>>>>> data using Flink SQL Client CLI.
> > > > >>>>>>> In the flink-examples-table module, a ChangelogSocketExample
> > > > >>> class[1]
> > > > >>>>>>> describes how to ingest delete or insert data by 'nc'
> command.
> > > Can
> > > > >>> we
> > > > >>>>>>> support producing a changelog stream by the new datagen
> source?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-examples/flink-examples-table/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/examples/java/connectors/ChangelogSocketExample.java#L79
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Xianxun
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On 06/8/2022 08:10，Alexander Fedulov<alexander@ververica.com
> >
> > > > >>>>>>> <al...@ververica.com> wrote：
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I looked a bit further and it seems it should actually be
> > easier
> > > > >>> than
> > > > >>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>> initially thought:  SourceReader extends CheckpointListener
> > > > >>> interface
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> with its custom implementation it should be possible to
> achieve
> > > > >>>>> similar
> > > > >>>>>>> results. A prototype that I have for the generator uses an
> > > > >>>>>>> IteratorSourceReader
> > > > >>>>>>> under the hood by default but we could consider adding the
> > > ability
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> supply something like a DataGeneratorSourceReaderFactory that
> > > would
> > > > >>>>> allow
> > > > >>>>>>> provisioning the DataGeneratorSource with customized
> > > > >>> implementations
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>> cases like this.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:58 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Steven,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> This is going to be tricky since in the new Source API the
> > > > >>>>> checkpointing
> > > > >>>>>>> aspects that you based your logic on are pushed further away
> > from
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>>>> low-level interfaces responsible for handling data and splits
> > > [1].
> > > > >>> At
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>> same time, the SourceCoordinatorProvider is hardwired into
> the
> > > > >>>>> internals
> > > > >>>>>>> of the framework, so I don't think it will be possible to
> > > provide a
> > > > >>>>>>> customized implementation for testing purposes.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> The only chance to tie data generation to checkpointing in
> the
> > > new
> > > > >>>>> Source
> > > > >>>>>>> API that I see at the moment is via the SplitEnumerator
> > > serializer
> > > > >>> (
> > > > >>>>>>> getEnumeratorCheckpointSerializer() method) [2]. In theory,
> it
> > > > >>> should
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>> possible to share a variable visible both to the generator
> > > function
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> the serializer and manipulate it whenever the serialize()
> > method
> > > > >>> gets
> > > > >>>>>>> called upon a checkpoint request. That said, you still won't
> > get
> > > > >>>>>>> notifications of successful checkpoints that you currently
> use
> > > > >>> (this
> > > > >>>>> info
> > > > >>>>>>> is only available to the SourceCoordinator).
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> In general, regardless of the generator implementation
> itself,
> > > the
> > > > >>> new
> > > > >>>>>>> Source
> > > > >>>>>>> API does not seem to support the use case of verifying
> > > checkpoints
> > > > >>>>>>> contents in lockstep with produced data, at least I do not
> see
> > an
> > > > >>>>>> immediate
> > > > >>>>>>> solution for this. Can you think of a different way of
> checking
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>> correctness of the Iceberg Sink implementation that does not
> > rely
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>> approach?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/0f19c2472c54aac97e4067f5398731ab90036d1a/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/source/coordinator/SourceCoordinator.java#L337
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/e4b000818c15b5b781c4e5262ba83bfc9d65121a/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/source/Source.java#L97
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:03 PM Steven Wu <
> stevenz3wu@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> In Iceberg source, we have a data generator source that can
> > > control
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>> records per checkpoint cycle. Can we support sth like this in
> > the
> > > > >>>>>>> DataGeneratorSource?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/flink/v1.15/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/source/BoundedTestSource.java
> > > > >>>>>>> public BoundedTestSource(List<List<T>> elementsPerCheckpoint,
> > > > >>> boolean
> > > > >>>>>>> checkpointEnabled)
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>> Steven
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:48 AM Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > >>>>>> alexander@ververica.com
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I would like to open a discussion on FLIP-238: Introduce
> > > > >>> FLIP-27-based
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Data
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Generator Source [1]. During the discussion about deprecating
> > the
> > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction API [2] it became evident that an easy-to-use
> > > > >>>>>>> FLIP-27-compatible data generator source is needed so that
> the
> > > > >>> current
> > > > >>>>>>> SourceFunction-based data generator implementations could be
> > > phased
> > > > >>>>> out
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> both Flink demo/PoC applications and for the internal Flink
> > > tests.
> > > > >>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>> FLIP proposes to introduce a generic DataGeneratorSource
> > capable
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>>> producing events of an arbitrary type based on a
> user-supplied
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> MapFunction.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9Av1D
> > > > >>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6cwqw9b3105wcpdkwq7rr4s7x4ywqr9
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>> Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>