I guess chaining happens so often, that we should just write this doc assuming that there is chaining, and not even describe the rules for the non-chaining case. I mean I would never risk writing a UDF that only works when there is no chaining, and then constantly worry about when do I accidentally introduce chaining. Or what do you think?
Best, Gábor 2015-12-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > Good write up. You could extend the Table of 1) a/b 2) a/b at the top with > “chaining” (but you already know this, I guess). Chaining changes all of > these and I think it can be tricky to know whether stuff is chained or not > (for users, and even for us developers…). > > >> On 13 Dec 2015, at 19:24, Gábor Gévay <gga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I find the documentation about object reuse [1] very confusing. I >> started a Google Doc [2] about clarifying/rewriting it. >> >> First, it states four questions that I think should have answers >> stated explicitly in the documentation, and then lists some concrete >> problems (ambiguities) in the current text. >> >> [1] >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/apis/programming_guide.html#object-reuse-behavior >> [2] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgkuttvmj4jUonG7E2RdFVjKlfQDm_hE6gvFcgAfzXg/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Best, >> Gabor >
