Every vote counts. :D
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> I like it. Not sure if my vote counts ;)
>
> On 05/12/2015 07:18 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>> My proposal for the runtime classes (per my Pull Request is this):
>>
>> StreamTask: base of streaming tasks, the task
I like it. Not sure if my vote counts ;)
On 05/12/2015 07:18 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> My proposal for the runtime classes (per my Pull Request is this):
>
> StreamTask: base of streaming tasks, the task is the AbstractInvokable
> that runs in the TaskManager and invokes stream operators
> O
My proposal for the runtime classes (per my Pull Request is this):
StreamTask: base of streaming tasks, the task is the AbstractInvokable
that runs in the TaskManager and invokes stream operators
OneInputStreamTask and TwoOnputStreamTask and SourceStreamTask are the
subclasses responsible for act
How about separating the discussions about runtime class renaming (there
seems to be consensus) from the
API class renaming (no consensus yet).
To go ahead with the runtime classes, can you make a concrete suggestion
for more memorable/describing names?
For the API classes, kick off a thread, if
Come to think of it, why do we even need SingleOutputStreamOperator?
It is just a subclass of DataStream that has almost no functionality
that couldn't be implemented in DataStream. I think it makes people
wonder why the result of a transformation is not a DataStream but this
mouthful of a class.
Hi,
I am in favor of removing the Stream (or Streaming) suffixes and prefixes.
I think that Gyula was also referring to those.
I think the naming of the Tasks, and user facing operators
(SingleOutputStreamOperator and alike) are fine.
As for the other bunch of Operators we could name them Driver
Which name changes are you referring to? The proposed names in my
recent PR? Or the dropping of Stream from all the classes. For the
rest I was just rambling about how I don't like the names in the batch
API. :D
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Gyula Fóra wrote:
> Generally I am in favor of makin
Generally I am in favor of making these name changes. My only concern is
regarding to the one-input and multiple inputs operators.
There is a general problem with the n-ary operators regarding type safety,
thats why we now have SingleInput and Co (two-input) operators. I think we
should keep these
Hi,
since I'm currently reworking the Stream operators I thought it's a
good time to talk about the naming of some classes. We have some
legacy problems with lots of Operators, OperatorBases, TwoInput,
OneInput, Unary, Binary, etc. And maybe we can break things in
streaming to have more consistent
