RE SLAs there was actually a lot of people who chimed in and expressed concerns with the approach, but no one took the step of actually down voting it. It's hard to down vote and say no this does not seem right. And sometimes these things gain a momentum and you don't want to be a stick in the mud, particularly if you don't have a better solution and someone has spent a lot of time on it. But yeah we should not be so timid about saying no that we never do it.
I think I did not really engage with it until substantially later in the process, wish I could have engaged earlier. On the topic of streaming, yeah, I'm trying to do my part to engage in this thread. I don't yet see and understand the value so that's why I suggested fleshing out the proposal in a doc. I'm not ready to give any thumbs up yet cus I'd don't see it. That doesn't mean the value isn't there, just I don't see it / understand it yet. And yeah we're only two people here engaging with this one so, it's good if others could consider the proposal also. But people only have so much time. And anyway, I think the proposal needs more clarity to be efficiently and accurately evaluated -- so formalizing it a bit, even if not precisely an AIP, would help in others to chime in. Really get into what problem it's solving and why and how. On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:05 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > So I think what David really needs (from you Daniel and others) if is the > idaa sounds right, if it does and we agree it is something that should be > clarified in detail and there are no major blockers to move in this > direction - this can be turned into detailed proposal with the syntax, > > I think we had a long story of some cases (like SLA) where we asked for > detailed AIPs and then after it has been delivered it turned out that the > idea from the very beginning was not right, but this feedback has been > missing. SLA feature sufferred from late feedback that "the whole idea > seems wrong". > > I think we should avoid such an approach. If we see that the general idea > is wrong we should give early feedback - and then engage in detailed > discussion - but without the "I have not paid attention before but the > whole thing is wrong". > > I think David is looking for this kind of confirmation, so that he does not > spend days and weeks on detailing a proposal then was strangled to death > because we did not like the idea in the first place. That's very > discouraging. > > J, > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 6:00 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > It's about the same David's proposal is about stream syntax to run the > > operators in the task. So those are not two things - this is the "idea" > > (run operators in a loop in a task) and implementation detail (stream > > syntax). > > > > I think at this stage I distilled the idea from the syntax proposal, and > > what we could do in the future is to make sure that syntax is good. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 4:11 PM Daniel Standish > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > >> I'm still a bit fuzzy on the proposal. It also seems at times like you > >> two > >> (David and Jarek) are sorta talking about two different things. David: > >> "stream" syntax. Jarek: run operator in a task. > >> > >> I would suggest @David maybe just produce a sort of draft AIP maybe in > >> google docs or something and share and interested parties can review and > >> understand better and possibly help shape the direction. > >> > > >
