I second Chesnay's opinions, which I'd like to pick up is that I highly recommend reuse existing mailing lists. We can always build a separated list when the specific community grows, but it is hard to do it in the contract direction.
I don't stick to the name but vote my coin to "statefun". Playing with statefun will be fun, I think :-) (Generally, Erlang uses "fun", Go uses "func" and Rust uses "fn", I don't find a strong reason that "func" is an objective better choice Best, tison. Xuefu Z <usxu...@gmail.com> 于2019年11月9日周六 上午4:16写道： > Regarding the package name, etc: > > statefun certainly sounds more interesting, but it's confusing in my > opinion and doesn't reflect its true nature. A letter "c" at the end may > helps as "func" is more used as a short for "function" in CS. > > Thanks, > Xuefu > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 3:52 AM Igal Shilman <i...@ververica.com> wrote: > > > Hi Chesnay, > > > > The correct link for [1] is: > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201911.mbox/%3CCANC1h_vicBWQSGws6Q%2BTXJXde0K%2BAMoVN4VqGU_Hykb1N7J8ng%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > 1) There is no relevant post, this is the name that is currently used > both > > for the website and internally. > > The name is not the original name, and it evolved out of internal > > discussions and a/b-testing with few early users, this name > > was able to "position" the project at the correct place better than > others. > > If more people would feel unconvinced, or you would strongly oppose to > it, > > then we can create a separate discussion thread. > > > > 4) Ok, I will change the proposal to option (b). > > > > Kind regards, > > Igal. > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > [1] Does not directly link to the voting thread. > > > > > > 1) I skimmed all 3 threads about the stateful functions proposal and > > > could not find a rational for the repository name, I'd appreciate a > > > direct link to the relevant post. > > > > > > 2.1) +1 as we use o.a.f also for flink-shaded > > > > > > 3) +1 as it follows the existing package conventions for libraries. > > > > > > 4) b; I see no reason why we would isolate mailing lists when we > haven't > > > done so for the myriad of other components that are largely independent > > > from each other (like SQL). > > > There are some practical issues here with having a separate dev ML, for > > > example where to send FLIPs or release threads and ensuring they reach > a > > > large enough audience, which a dedicated ML would likely hinder. > > > I'm currently also assuming that builds/commits also go to the general > > > flink MLs, making it even weirder if just dev were spliced out. > > > > > > 5) separate component, like "API / Statefun" > > > > > > Personally I'm not sold on the "statefun" name, has this been a > > > discussion item in one of the other threads? > > > > > > On 07/11/2019 17:10, Igal Shilman wrote: > > > > Hello everyone! > > > > > > > > Following the successful vote to accept Stateful Functions into Flink > > > [1], > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the technical aspects of > > the > > > > contribution. > > > > Once the discussion will finalize I will summarize the results into a > > > FLIP > > > > and bring it up to a vote. > > > > > > > > 1) External repository name - Following the discussion conclusion of > > [2] > > > we > > > > need a name for an external repository. > > > > > > > > proposal: flink-statefun > > > > rational: discussed in the other thread. > > > > > > > > 2) Maven modules proposal: > > > > 2.1) group id: org.apache.flink > > > > 2.2) artifact ids: replace "stateful-functions-*" with "statefun-*". > > > > > > > > 3) Java package name: org.apache.flink.statefun.* > > > > > > > > 4) Mailing list - should we reuse the existing mailing list or have a > > > > dedicated mailing list for stateful functions? > > > > options: > > > > a) Completely separate mailing list for statefun developers and > users ( > > > > dev-state...@flink.apache.org and user-state...@flink.apache.org) > > > > b) Reuse the dev and user mailing lists of Flink > > > > c) Reuse Flink's user mailing list, but create a dedicated mailing > list > > > for > > > > development. > > > > d) Have a separate single list for developers and users of statefun ( > > > > state...@flink.apache.org) > > > > > > > > proposal: (c) separate dev list: "dev-state...@flink.apache.org" and > > > reuse > > > > the Flink user mailing list. > > > > rational: It is very likely that stateful functions users would > > encounter > > > > the same operational issues as regular Flink users, therefore > > > > it might be beneficial to reuse the Flink user list. > > > > > > > > 5) separate JIRA project or just component / tag? > > > > proposal: use separate component for statefun. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Igal > > > > > > > > [1] > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201911.mbox/browser > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201910.mbox/%3CCANC1h_vRPWs1PnRPuDe602zhX=3j713fanz0wn2dw9pzf_t...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Xuefu Zhang > > "In Honey We Trust!" >
