Hi all, The hints proposed in FLIP-313 can be added later if needed.
That sounds good. Will definitely take that as a followup task to consider. So I'm +1 to continue with this FLIP, unless there are objections from > others? Since it doesn't seem that there were any objections, I'm going to start a voting thread. Thanks, Alan On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 8:57 AM Fabian Hüske <fhue...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi all, > > The FLIP looks good to me and I think as well that we should continue with > it. > > The hints proposed in FLIP-313 can be added later if needed. > > Thanks, Fabian > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:50 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > thanks for giving us some context. It looks like FLIP-313 has not seen > > any progress for 2 years. We can still revive FLIP-313 for the hint > > discussion but start with config options. It makes sense that there is > > consistency between AsycScalarFunction and AsyncTableFunction with > > respect to configuration. Overall FLIP-498 is in a good shape and its > > time that this feature will land in master regardless of the contributor. > > > > So I'm +1 to continue with this FLIP, unless there are objections from > > others? > > > > Cheers, > > Timo > > > > > > On 13.01.25 18:35, Alan Sheinberg wrote: > > > I just wanted to add a little bit to my response as I considered the > > > previous FLIP. > > > > > > I support FLIP-313 and the proposal of the original author. I wasn't > > trying > > > to take it over, but wanted to show renewed interest. > > > > > > I'm also focused on a smaller MVP, which is why I omitted hint > > > support, which seemed to be a previous point of discussion. This is in > > > line with what I implemented for AsycScalarFunction and has direct > parity > > > with the configurations exposed. I just wanted to highlight that > > > difference. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Alan > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 8:55 AM Alan Sheinberg < > asheinb...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks for the responses Timo, Dawid. > > >> > > >> > > >>> However, why have you decided to resubmit the FLIP with a newer > number > > >>> rather than following up on FLIP-313? The only difference I see > between > > >>> the > > >>> two FLIPs is the options/hints design. Could you elaborate where the > > >>> differences come from? > > >> > > >> > > >> I think you're right about the hints being the only real difference in > > >> public interface -- I'm not proposing to support them just yet. > Since I > > >> was thinking about the implementation details, I wanted to fill some > of > > >> those details in more than they were in the previous FLIP. > > >> > > >> Just for my own knowledge, what's the community's policy for > addressing > > >> topics covered by previous FLIPs? I figured since it had been 1.5 > years > > >> and I had dug into the problem myself, I would create a new one rather > > than > > >> voice support for the old one. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Alan > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 7:25 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < > > dwysakow...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Generally what is suggested here makes sense to me. > > >>> > > >>> However, why have you decided to resubmit the FLIP with a newer > number > > >>> rather than following up on FLIP-313? The only difference I see > between > > >>> the > > >>> two FLIPs is the options/hints design. Could you elaborate where the > > >>> differences come from? > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Dawid > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 20:48, Alan Sheinberg <asheinb...@confluent.io > > >>> .invalid> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I'd like to start a discussion of FLIP-498: AsyncTableFunction for > > async > > >>>> table function support [1] > > >>>> > > >>>> This feature proposes exposing AsyncTableFunction as a proper user > > >>> defined > > >>>> function. The type already exists for Lookup Joins, but isn't > usable > > as > > >>>> other UDFs. This FLIP would bring it up to parity with others. > > >>>> > > >>>> The motivation is similar to other async cases, namely improving > > >>>> performance while issuing long-latency calls to external systems. > This > > >>> is > > >>>> similar to AsyncScalarFunction, which exists in Flink. > > >>>> > > >>>> I realize this was effectively proposed in the past in FLIP 313. [2] > > >>> This > > >>>> re-proposes that general feature and gives an update with additional > > >>>> details informed by work on AsyncScalarFunction. > > >>>> > > >>>> Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions. > > >>>> > > >>>> [1] > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-498%3A+AsyncTableFunction+for+async+table+function+support > > >>>> [2] > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-313%3A+Add+support+of+User+Defined+AsyncTableFunction > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Alan > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >
