You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@beam.apache.org by "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2017/04/06 17:03:41 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (BEAM-115) Beam Runner API
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-115?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15959305#comment-15959305 ]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on BEAM-115:
-------------------------------------
GitHub user kennknowles opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2452
[BEAM-115] Rename FunctionSpec and UrnWithParameter to their (hopefully) final names
Be sure to do all of the following to help us incorporate your contribution
quickly and easily:
- [ ] Make sure the PR title is formatted like:
`[BEAM-<Jira issue #>] Description of pull request`
- [ ] Make sure tests pass via `mvn clean verify`. (Even better, enable
Travis-CI on your fork and ensure the whole test matrix passes).
- [ ] Replace `<Jira issue #>` in the title with the actual Jira issue
number, if there is one.
- [ ] If this contribution is large, please file an Apache
[Individual Contributor License Agreement](https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf).
---
R: @tgroh
I believe this is consistent with dev discussions and in PRs, etc.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/kennknowles/beam runner-api-touch-ups
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2452.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #2452
----
----
> Beam Runner API
> ---------------
>
> Key: BEAM-115
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-115
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: beam-model-runner-api
> Reporter: Kenneth Knowles
> Assignee: Kenneth Knowles
>
> The PipelineRunner API from the SDK is not ideal for the Beam technical vision.
> It has technical limitations:
> - The user's DAG (even including library expansions) is never explicitly represented, so it cannot be analyzed except incrementally, and cannot necessarily be reconstructed (for example, to display it!).
> - The flattened DAG of just primitive transforms isn't well-suited for display or transform override.
> - The TransformHierarchy isn't well-suited for optimizations.
> - The user must realistically pre-commit to a runner, and its configuration (batch vs streaming) prior to graph construction, since the runner will be modifying the graph as it is built.
> - It is fairly language- and SDK-specific.
> It has usability issues (these are not from intuition, but derived from actual cases of failure to use according to the design)
> - The interleaving of apply() methods in PTransform/Pipeline/PipelineRunner is confusing.
> - The TransformHierarchy, accessible only via visitor traversals, is cumbersome.
> - The staging of construction-time vs run-time is not always obvious.
> These are just examples. This ticket tracks designing, coming to consensus, and building an API that more simply and directly supports the technical vision.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)