I agree with Aljoscha on this. DataTable does not make a lot of sense to me... (except for going nicely with DataSet and DataStream).
2015-03-25 13:58 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > But why DataTable? What other kind of Table could it be, CarTable? :D > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Alexander Alexandrov > <alexander.s.alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 for DataTable as core abstraction name and "flink-table" or something > > similar as the package name. > > > > 2015-03-25 11:54 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > > > >> I also prefer Relation. So what should we do? Doesn't really look like > >> consensus. > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Paris Carbone <par...@kth.se> wrote: > >> > Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation > >> API. > >> > It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet, > DataStream) > >> so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention. > >> > Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning. > >> > > >> > Paris > >> > > >> > On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com<mailto: > >> fhue...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > > >> > I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of > tuples > >> > with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational > >> > databases. > >> > > >> > Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this > >> term. > >> > On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <henry.sapu...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > > >> > I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation > >> > as the abstraction? > >> > > >> > - Henry > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:fhue...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely > follows > >> > the terms DataSet and DataStream. > >> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <aljos...@apache.org > <mailto: > >> aljos...@apache.org>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > I like Relation or Rel, is shorter. > >> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <reckone...@gmail.com > <mailto: > >> reckone...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > > >> > +1 for DataTable > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org > >> <mailto:trohrm...@apache.org>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > +1 for DataTable > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi < > >> > balassi.mar...@gmail.com<mailto:balassi.mar...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > +1 for Max's suggestion. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels < > >> > m...@apache.org<mailto:m...@apache.org>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not > >> > keep > >> > flink-expressions. > >> > > >> > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction > >> > equivalent. > >> > For > >> > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At > >> > first > >> > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite > >> > intuitive > >> > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-) > >> > > >> > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close: > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
