beam-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henning Rohde (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (BEAM-3204) Coders only should have a FunctionSpec, not an SdkFunctionSpec
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:56:00 GMT


Henning Rohde updated BEAM-3204:
    Issue Type: Sub-task  (was: Improvement)
        Parent: BEAM-3221

> Coders only should have a FunctionSpec, not an SdkFunctionSpec
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: BEAM-3204
>                 URL:
>             Project: Beam
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: beam-model
>            Reporter: Kenneth Knowles
>            Assignee: Henning Rohde
>              Labels: portability
> We added environments to coders to account for "custom" coders where it is only really
possible for one SDK to understand them, like this:
> {code}
> Coder {
>   spec: SdkFunctionSpec {
>     environment: "java_sdk_docker_container",
>     spec: FunctionSpec {
>       urn: "beam:coder:java_custom_coder",
>       payload: <serialized java bytes>
>     }
>   }
> }
> {code}
> But a coder must be understood by both the producer of a PCollection and its consumers.
A coder is not the same as other UDF, though these are user-defined.
> A pipeline where either the producer or consumer cannot handle the coder is invalid,
and we will have to build our cross-language APIs to prevent construction of such a pipeline.
So we can drop the environment.
> I think there are some folks who want to reserve the ability to add an environment later,
perhaps, to not pain ourselves into a corner. In this case, we can just add a field to Coder.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message