Hi Aljoscha, I see. Thanks for your reply.
Best, Tony Wei Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>於 2017年4月26日 週三，下午10:29寫道： > Hi, > Both implementations work so no one bothered to change the older > implementations yet. I don’t think it’s a problem but if you want you can > adapt reduce/fold to the newer implementation. > > Best, > Aljoscha > > On 26. Apr 2017, at 14:51, 魏偉哲 <tony19920...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Aljoscha, > > > > I know the aggregate code is newer. I am confused because the > > implementations are not consistent. > > Does it mean that the reduce/fold implementation would need to be > > refactored for the purpose of having less layers ? > > Or is it better to remain the current implementations for some reasons? > > > > Many thanks, > > Tony Wei > > > > 2017-04-26 20:24 GMT+08:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > > > >> Hi Tony, > >> The reason for this is that the aggregate code is newer. The new code > has > >> less layers, compared to the reduce/fold implementation where it is > >> InternalFunction(ReduceApplyFunction(Reduce)) instead of > >> InteralAggregateFunction(Aggregate). > >> > >> Best, > >> Aljoscha > >>> On 26. Apr 2017, at 06:39, 魏偉哲 <tony19920...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Recently, I was tracing the source code in streaming api and I was > >> confused > >>> about some implementations. > >>> > >>> When using reduce function with evictor, the *WindowStream* will wrap > the > >>> *ReduceFunction* and *ProcessWindowFunction* into > >>> *ReduceApplyProcessWindonwFunction* and put it in > >>> *InternalIterableProcessWindowFunction*. So does fold function. > >>> > >>> However, when using aggregate, the *InternalIterableProcessWindowF > >> unction* > >>> was changed to *InternalAggregateProcessWindowFunction* which was > >> applied > >>> aggregation in the process() method. > >>> > >>> My question is why not implement an *AggregateApplyProcessWindowFun > >> ction* > >>> and use *InternalIterableProcessWindowFunction* instead just like > >> reduce, > >>> fold function did. Is there any concern? > >>> > >>> Many thanks, > >>> Tony Wei > >> > >> > >
