Skip to content

Conversation

@Zakelly
Copy link
Contributor

@Zakelly Zakelly commented Apr 1, 2024

What is the purpose of the change

As discussed in FLIP-424, we will introduce a new set of State APIs for asynchronous state access. This PR provides the definition of this API as described in FLIP-424.

Brief change log

  • New api under org.apache.flink.api.common.state.v2.

Verifying this change

This change is a trivial rework without any test coverage.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): no
  • The serializers: no
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: no
  • The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? yes
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? not documented

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Apr 1, 2024

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@Zakelly Zakelly changed the title [FLINK-34978] Introduce Asynchronous State APIs [FLINK-34978][State] Introduce Asynchronous State APIs Apr 1, 2024
@Zakelly
Copy link
Contributor Author

Zakelly commented Apr 1, 2024

Rebase on FLINK-34548 and introduce this in flink-core-api

Copy link
Contributor

@masteryhx masteryhx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR.
PTAL my comments.

@Zakelly
Copy link
Contributor Author

Zakelly commented Apr 1, 2024

@masteryhx Thanks for your suggestion! I modified accordingly, PTAL. Thanks!

By the way, the CI failure is caused by #24596

@masteryhx
Copy link
Contributor

@masteryhx Thanks for your suggestion! I modified accordingly, PTAL. Thanks!

By the way, the CI failure is caused by #24596

Thanks for the update. Overall LGTM.
Let's wait #24596 merged and rebase it to trigger the CI again.

Copy link
Contributor

@masteryhx masteryhx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the update.
LGTM.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants