Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for Flink and custom sinks. #6

Open
kl0u opened this issue Jan 20, 2016 · 5 comments
Open

Add support for Flink and custom sinks. #6

kl0u opened this issue Jan 20, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@kl0u
Copy link
Contributor

kl0u commented Jan 20, 2016

Currently the Runner has no support for sinks, apart from the console one, which is just for testing and debugging. We have to create a wrapper for the Dataflow sinks and the Flink ones.

@bakey
Copy link

bakey commented Feb 16, 2016

@kl0u
What you mean is it that we need to add one FileBaseSink in Runner? Or any other forms support for sinks?

@kl0u
Copy link
Contributor Author

kl0u commented Feb 16, 2016

Hello @bakey !

Thanks for wanting to get involved in the Beam Flink Runner.
So, concerning the sinks, this issue exists because also the Beam (or Google Dataflow) SDK version at the time we created the Flink Runner, did not support any Unbounded Sinks. Write operations were only allowed for batch workloads.

What would be interesting is to build support in the Beam Flink Runner for Flink Streaming sinks. This translates into creating a wrapper for sinks that implement the RichSinkFunction.

Cheers,
Kostas

@bakey
Copy link

bakey commented Feb 16, 2016

@kl0u
Is it that means we have to add unbounded sinks support in Beam first , and then add translator in the runner to translate them to Flink?

@kl0u
Copy link
Contributor Author

kl0u commented Feb 18, 2016

@bakey In the long run yes. But for people to start using Beam on top of Flink, we can just add something like a method like writeToFlinkSink.

@mxm
Copy link
Contributor

mxm commented Feb 21, 2016

Actually, we could realize sink support like in #3 using Write.Bound. The interface might be intended only for batch but it would work for streaming applications as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants