+1 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:23 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> If naming is the only concern, then we should go ahead, because we can > change names easily (before the release). > > In fact, I don't think it leaves a bad impression. Global windows are > non-parallel windows. There are also parallel windows. Pick what you need > and what works. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think we agree on everything its more of a naming issue :) > > > > I thought it might be misleading that global time windows are > > "non-parallel" windows. We dont want to give a bad impression. (Also we > > dont want them to think that every global window is parallel but thats > not > > a problem here) > > > > Gyula > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:22 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Okay, what is missing about the windowing in your opinion? > > > > > > The core points of the document are: > > > > > > - The parallel windows are per group only. > > > > > > - The implementation of the parallel windows holds window data in the > > > group buffers. > > > > > > - The global windows are non-parallel. May have parallel > > pre-aggregation, > > > if they are time windows. > > > > > > - Time may be operator time (timer thread), or watermark time. > > Watermark > > > time can refer to ingress or event time. > > > > > > - Windows that do not pre-aggregate may require elements in order. > Not > > > part of the first prototype. > > > > > > Do we agree on those points? > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > In general I like it, although the main difference between the > current > > > and > > > > the new one is the windowing and that is still not very clear. > > > > > > > > Where do we have the full stream time windows for instance?(which is > > > > parallel but not keyed) > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM Aljoscha Krettek < > aljos...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 I like it as well. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 at 16:17 Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 from my side > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have consensus on these designs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have, we should get to implementing this soon, because > > > > basically > > > > > > all > > > > > > > streaming patches will have to be revisited in light of this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Gyula Fóra < > gyula.f...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right thats an important issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I think we should also do some renaming with the > > "iterations" > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > they are not really iterations like in the batch case and it > > > might > > > > > > > confuse > > > > > > > > some users. > > > > > > > > Maybe we can call them loops or cycles and rename the api > calls > > > to > > > > > make > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > more intuitive what happens. It is really just a cyclic > > dataflow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: > > 2015. > > > > júl. > > > > > > 7., > > > > > > > > K, > > > > > > > > 15:35): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that we don't have anything about how > > iterations > > > > and > > > > > > > > > timestamps/watermarks should interact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 at 23:56 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As many of you know, there are a ongoing efforts to > > > consolidate > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > streaming API for the next release, and then graduate it > > > (from > > > > > beta > > > > > > > > > > status). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the process of this consolidation, we want to achieve > > the > > > > > > > following > > > > > > > > > > goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Make the code more robust and simplify it in parts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Clearly define the semantics of the constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Prepare it for support of more advanced concepts, like > > > > > > > partitionable > > > > > > > > > > state, and event time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Cut support for certain corner cases that were > > prototyped, > > > > but > > > > > > > > turned > > > > > > > > > > out to be not efficiently doable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on prior discussions on the mailing list, Aljoscha > > and > > > me > > > > > > > drafted > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > design documents below, which outline how the > consolidated > > > API > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > like. > > > > > > > > > > We focused in constructs, time, and window semantics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Design document on how to restructure the Streaming API: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Streams+and+Operations+on+Streams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Design document on definitions of time, order, and the > > > > resulting > > > > > > > > > semantics: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Time+and+Order+in+Streams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: The design of the interfaces and concepts for > > advanced > > > > > state > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > functions is not in here. That is part of a separate > design > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > orthogonal to the designs drafted here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please have a look and voice questions and concerns. > Since > > we > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > break the streaming API more than once, we should make > sure > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > consolidation brings it into the shape we want it to be > in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
